Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19.1. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], after referring to the principles laid down in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28], the Three-Judge Bench held that the court must, while giving directions for regularisation, act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. On the facts of the case at hand, the Three-Judge Bench noticed that, apart from the fact that the High Court was not right in holding that the several conditions imposed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab in 2025:KER:68685 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 their respective orders relating to regularisation are arbitrary and not valid, the High Court acted rather hastily in directing wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year's service, and that too unconditionally. In paragraph 25 of the said decision, the Three-Judge Bench pointed out several problems that would arise if such directions became the norm.

26.1. In Travancore Devaswom Board [2025 KHC OnLine 1782], the Division Bench noticed that the extent, ambit and applicability of the principles of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] were explained in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]. The Apex Court proceeded to hold in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] that while the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] 2025:KER:68685 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhering to Constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to argue that no vested right for regularisation exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgement of cases where regularisation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponising it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. In Official 2025:KER:68685 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1], the Three-Judge Bench held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be diluted by Benches of lesser strength. The modification attempted to be brought about by a Bench of Two-Judges of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [(2007) 11 SCC 92] was held to be obiter dictum as well. But the 1999 Scheme evolved by the Government for absorption of the company-paid staff only to the extent of 50% vacancies in the direct recruitment quota of Group C posts, was held to be not unconstitutional. As such, it cannot be said that the ratio in Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1] will stand in the way of considering the claim of respondents No.3 to 5 in the application filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

30.2. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the Court noticed that in Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC v. K.V. Ramana [(2007) 2 SCC 324] the Apex Court reiterated that, as held by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the courts. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularised dehors the rules for selection, as has been held in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. In State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [(2011) 2 SCC 429] the Apex Court reiterated that, the High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. In Yogesh 2025:KER:68685 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Mahajan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], the Apex Court reiterated that an employee appointed on contract basis has no right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. On the fats of the case at hand, the Court noticed that the petitioner could not point out any rule or regulation framed by the respondent on the basis of which he claims regularisation in the post of Plant Attender or continuance in that post till a permanent appointment is made to that post. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule or regulation having statutory force, no writ or direction can be issued by this Court for regularisation or continuance of a casual, ad hoc, contract or daily rated employee.

34. A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] would show that in the said decision the Apex Court was considering the sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court of Panjab and Haryana in the light of various orders passed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees and daily-wagers or casual labourers. In the said decision the Apex Court followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28]. The Apex Court found that the direction by the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than a year should be regularised has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. Though persons belonging to those categories, continuing over a number of years, have a right to claim 2025:KER:68685 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principles enunciated in the decisions on the point, the blanket direction given by the High Court cannot be sustained. In paragraphs 45 to 50 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] the Apex Court made certain observations, which each Government or authority should bear in mind while devising its own criteria or principles for regularisation of ad hoc or temporary employees in Government service. The appellants-petitioners are placing reliance on the observation contained in paragraph 46 of the said decision, which reads thus;