Afr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.18 18:31:16 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:8782 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6234 of 2023 Neelima Yadav D/o Shri Kunjbihari Yadav Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Sports Instructor Sports Department, NIT Raipur (C.G.), District - Raipur (C.G.), R/o Mahaveer Nagar LIG 6 Shiv Temple Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 6326 of 2023 Miss Sandhya Mahadik D/o. Late Mahesh Rao Mahadik, Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Sports Assistant Sports Department, NIT Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o. Santoshi Nagar Boria Road Near To Sheetla Mandir Tikrapara Thana Area Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner 2 Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 1555 of 2024 1 - Sanjay Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shri Keshaw Prasad Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Physics Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o H.N. 276, Near Opal School Jawahar Nagar Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Ram Verma Aged About 50 Years Occupation Assistant Grade IV (Contract), Electrical Engineering Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o Vill. Nardha, P.O. Nardha, P.S. Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kush Kumar S/o Lt. Ghanshyam Soni Aged About 35 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), Electrical Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o 17/24C Glaxi Chowk, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Arjun Singh Dewangan Aged About 45 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Mechanical Workshop Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o Azad Chowk Jhiriya Para Ruabandha Basti Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sachin Kumar Donode S/o Shri Krishna Rao Donode Aged About 35 Years Occupation Lab Assistant Mining Engineering Department NIT 3 Raipur C.G., R/o H.No. 1247/1 Ward No. 21 Indira Nagar Charoda, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Miss Neha Dubey D/o Shri Rajendra Dev Dubey Aged About 38 Years Occupation Assistant Grade III (Contract), Department of Metallurgical And Material Engineering, NIT, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Sujit Kumar Kar S/o Shri Ajit Kumar Kar Aged About 51 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Electrical Department NIT, Raipur C.G., R/o Adarsh Nagar (Arora Colony) Post Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Manohar Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Dewangan, aged about 41 years, Occupation Lab Attendant (Contract), Physics Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o VilI. And Post Katgi, Tah. Kasdol, District Balodabazar (C.G.). 9 - Miss Sandhya Joshi D/o Shri Mahajan Aged About 40 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Electronics And Communication Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o House No. 2931 Sai Nath Colony Lane No. 3, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Miss Anjali Parate D/o Shri Purushottam Parte Aged About 37 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Computer Science And Engineering Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o House No. 1017 Near Budha Talab Pul Mazar Wali Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Smt. Deepika Sharma W/o Shri Ramesh Sharma Aged About 45 Years Occupation Metron AG-II (Contract), Indravati Girls Hostel NIT, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Ujjawala Yadav W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Yadu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Assistant Grade II (Contract), Electronic And Communication Department, NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o In front of Ravan 4 Statue Ring Road, Near Sahu Furnisher, Ravan Bhatha, Bhatha Gav Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Chandrakant Bhanwar S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Bhanwar Aged About 35 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o Shri Ram Nagar Changorabhata, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Mohd. Tanveer Khan S/o Mohd. Talib Khan Aged About 42 Years Occupation Junior Engineer Electrical Department National Institute of Technology Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Biram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Metallurgical And Material Engineering Department NIT, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 16 - Smt. Sudha Giri W/o Shri Pradeep Prakash Giri Aged About 45 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Metallurgical And Material Engineering Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o MIG-STD 272, Phase-1 Gate No. 2 Kabir Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
17 - Ripusudan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhar Aged About 54 Years Occupation Technical Assistant Grade III, Mechanical Workshop National Institute of Technology Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 18 - Damman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Bishouha Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Occupation Lab Assistant Daily Wages (Skill) Electrical Department, NIT, Raipur, C.G., Presently R/o New Changorabhatha Ganpati Nagar Raipur, Permanent Address Vill. Borsi Tah. Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 19 - Lekhraj Sahu S/o Shri U.D. Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation Data Entry Operator/ Assistant Grade III Examination Cell NIT Raipur, C.G., R/o MIG-I-1271, Sector-1, DDU Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 20 - Smt. Manju Verma W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years Occupation Grade IV (Daily Wages Unskilled), NIT, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G., R/o Vill. Nardaha, P.O. Nardaha, P.S. Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 21 - Rupendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 37 Years Occupation Assistant Grade III (Contract), Chief Warden (Boys) Office NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o Dewangan Kirana Store Ward No. 11, Behind Navin School Durga Nagar Amleshwar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 22 - Tarun Kumar S/o Badri Prasad Aged About 34 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), Mechanical Engineering Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o H.No. 105, Basti Para, Vill. And Post Tulsi (Manpur) Teh. Tilda (Neora) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 23 - Ishwar Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Jiwrakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years Occupation Assistant Grade II (Contract), Student Section NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o H.No. 105, Basti Para, Vill And Post Tulsi (Manpur) Teh. Tilda (Neora) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 24 - Subestin Francis S/o Late Shri Edward Francis Aged About 38 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), NIT, Raipur,C.G., R/o Gopal Nagar (Ram Nagar), Lane No. 2, Near Pooja Kirana Store, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 25 - Pavan Kumar Jhariya S/o Shri Natthu Lal Jhariya Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Assistant Grade II Contract (Junior/senior Assistant), NIT, Raipur, C.G., R/o EWS A-209, Indraprastha Phase II, Raipura, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 26 - Pramod Kumar Sahu S/o Shri D.S. Sahu Aged About 42 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Physics Department NIT, Raipur, C.G., Permanent R/o H.No 54/293, S/o D.S. Sahu Behind Gayatri Hospital Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 27 - Miss Shikha Maturkar D/o Shri Vinod Maturkar Aged About 31 Years Occupation Assistant Grade III Department of Humanities And Social Sciences NIT Raipur, C.G., R/o A-173, Housing Board Kota Colony, Gudhyari Road Kota, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur G.E. Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur G.E. Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 8674 of 2023 Rashmi Nagpal D/o Shri Nirmal Nagpal Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Technical Assistant - III (Contract), Dean, Students Welfare, NIT, Raipur (C.G.), R/o Roop Savitri, Near Vandana Bajaj Auto Show Room, Ramkund, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 8683 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Nagwanshi S/o Late Shri Hem Lal Nagwanshi Aged About 45 Years Occupation Lab Attendant (Contract), Metallurgy Department, NIT, Raipur (C.G.) R/o Near Shawani Kirana Stores, Kota, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 – Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Department Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 6240 of 2023 Smt. Nidhi Sharma W/o. Shri Manish Sharma, Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Office Assistant (Daily Wages Skilled), NIT, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o. 23/1227, Stadium Road Kota Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 8 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6247 of 2023 Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Shri Laxmi Naryan Soni Aged About 41 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Mining Engineering Department, NIT, Raipur (C.G.) District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 8687 of 2023 Ramesh Kumar Vijay S/o. Shri Ramayan Prasad, Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Technical Assistant (Contract), NIT, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o. Mandalkholi, Village - Banari, Post - Banari, Tahsil Janjgir District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner 9 Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastari Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 7160 of 2024 Omprakash Sahu S/o Shri Dukhit Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Laboratory Assistant, Department of Electronics And Telecommunication, NIT, Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. --- Respondents WPS No. 7212 of 2024 Khagesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chandrika Sahu Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Technical Assistant Department of Electronics And Telecommunication NIT Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 10 Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur G.E. Road Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur G.E. Road Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 7224 of 2024 Dhaneshwar Prasad Verma S/o Shri Laxman Singh Verma Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Laboratory Assistant, Department of Electronics And Telecommunication, NIT, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6752 of 2024 Shesh Narayan Verma S/o Shri Shatrughan Prasad Verma Aged About 36 Years Occupation Technical Assistant Chemistry Department, NIT Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 11 Versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Director National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Thakur and Mr. Sumit Singh, Central Government Counsel : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For National Institute of Technology Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Decision
Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Thakur and Mr. Sumit Singh, Central Government Counsel for Union of India (for short, ‘UOI’) as well as Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for National Institute of Technology (for short, ‘NIT’). 12 2. Since the common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of all these writ petitions are that the petitioners are contractual and daily wager employees working under the NIT and holding the substantive posts of Sports Instructor Marital Art Self Defence Instructor, Office Assistant, Laboratory Assistant, Sports Assistant, Technical Assistant III, Lab Attendant, Assistant Grade IV, Lab Assistant, Assistant Grade III, Metron AG II, Assistant Grade II, Junior Engineer, Data Entry Operator/Assistant Grade III and Grade IV. The petitioners were appointed after following the due process, though on contractual basis. The advertisement was issued, the petitioners participated in the selection process and thereafter on the basis of merit, the petitioners were selected for the aforesaid posts and joined their duties. The petitioners though were initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year to three years respectively and subsequently, the said period has been extended from time to time. It is the case of some of the the petitioners that they have worked with the Department for more than 10-16 years without any interruption as such, they have also made so many representations for regularization of their services, but till date, their representations have not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. Further grievance of the petitioners is 13 that insofar as the other Departments are concerned, the employees who were posted on contractual basis were considered for regularization and they have also been regularized. Hence, these petitions have been filed by respective petitioners. 4. Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions would submit that the petitioners were appointed after following the due process of law i.e. after issuance of the advertisement, calling application from the candidates and with due procedure, they were appointed. He would further submits that appointments of the petitioners are neither irregular or illegal. It has been further contended that the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service and if at this stage, they would be removed or regular appointment would be made, it would be injustice as they will be deprived from their right to be considered for regularization. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the petitioners are entitled for regularization. It has been further contended that the petitioners were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts and are duly qualified persons as well as they have completed more than 10 years of service, therefore, the question of regularization of their services ought to have been considered on merit by the respondent authorities. 5. Further, reliance has been placed upon the matter of Vinod 14 Kumar and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 to contend that the case of the petitioners for regularization ought to have been considered especially keeping in mind that they have completed more than 10-17 years of the service. It has been lastly contended that though the petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, but at the same time, the petitioners cannot be deprived from their accrued right to be considered for regularization. She also placed reliance upon the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners have earlier filed the writ petitions before this Court seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2006 and 07.10.2020 and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Uma devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), therefore, the Registrar, NIT, Raipur issued memorandums to the petitioners in compliance of the orders passed in the writ petition informing that there are no rules and instructions from the Central Government for regularizing the persons working on daily wages or contratual basis in the NIT Raipur, as such, their claim for regularization has been rejected. 7. It has been further argued that the Government of India, Ministry 15 of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Departmental of Personal and Training, vide memorandum No. 49019/1/2006-Estt. (C) dated 11.12.2006 issued an office memorandum regarding the regularization of qualified workers appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts in irregular manner, but the claim of the petitioners have not been decided. Further, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Departmental of Personal and Training, vide memorandum No.49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020 issued another office memorandum regarding the regularization of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts, but after completion of 10-16 years, their services have not been regularized. As such, the writ petitions be allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on which they were appointed and working at present. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Odisha and others v. Manoj Kumar Pradhan passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5184/2022 decided on 28.03.2022 as well as Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Gopi 16 Sao and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Appeal No.14/2017 decided on 07.12.2018, to buttress her submissions. 10. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for Union of India as well as Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for NIT would jointly submit that instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are working under the office of NIT on contractual basis, claiming relief to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, but there are no rules framed by the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioners on the post on which they have been working since long. They would further submit that respondents No.2 and 3 have availed the services of the petitioners on contractual basis, without there being any regular appointment over the said posts at that relevant point of time and at this juncture, the law governing the contractual appointments of the petitioners with the respondent authorities do not bind them for regularizing the services of the petitioners. They would also submit that perusal of the appointment orders issued to the petitioners would solidify the stand of the respondent authorities that there was absolutely nothing binding upon them to regularize the services of the petitioners and further extension orders filed by the petitioners would bring to the notice only one fact that appointments of the petitioners were strictly on 17 contractual and temporary basis and other Departments are having different set of Rules, which cannot be made applicable to the present petitioners as the Rules being different in nature cannot be equated with them. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions as also perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions with utmost circumspection. 12. From perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that though the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, but they are in continuous service since last more than 10-16 years and their contractual appointment has been extended from time to time. The petitioners are low paid employees posted as Sports Instructor Marital Art Self Defence Instructor, Office Assistant, Laboratory Assistant, Sports Assistant, Technical Assistant III, Lab Attendant, Assistant Grade IV, Lab Assistant, Assistant Grade III, Metron AG II, Assistant Grade II, Junior Engineer, Data Entry Operator/Assistant Grade III and Grade IV as they have completed more than 10-16 years of service, still their services are required by the respondent authorities. 13. Perusal of the office memorandums issued by the Central Government would also show that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Departmental of Personal and Training, vide memorandum No. 49019/1/2006-Estt.(C) dated 11.12.2006 issued an office 18 memorandum regarding the regularization of qualified workers appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts in irregular manner and further issued memorandum No.49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020 regarding the regularization of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts, but after completion of 10-16 years, their services have not been regularized. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders in respect of regularization of the employees, in which it has been held that if the employees have completed more than 10 years of service, then they should be regularized on the post on which they are working. They cannot made fray of temporary appointment for long periods. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted a list for employees working with the respondent authorities showing the number of writ petition, their names, posts, Department in NIT, status, date of appointment and number of years of their working, which is as follows for easy reference:- W.P(S) No. Name of the Post petitioner Department In NIT Status Date of appointment Number of years 6234/2023 Neelima Yadav Sports Instructor Martial Art Self defence Instructor Sports Department Daily Wages 09/09/2013 6240/2023 Smt. Nidhi Sharma Office Assistant Dean research & Consultancy Daily Wages Skilled 21/10/2013 6247/2023 Sunil Kumar Soni Laboratory Attendant Mining Department Contract 11/08/2008 6326/2023 Miss Sandhya Sports Assistant Sports Department Daily Wages 29/10/2014 11 years 5 months 11 years 4 months 16 years 6 months 10 years 3 8674/2023 8683/2023 8687/2023 1555/2024 1555/2024 Mahadik Rashmi Nagpal Santosh kumar Nagwanshi Ramesh Kumar Vijay Sanjay Kumar Deshmukh Mahendra Kumar Verma Technical Assistant III Technical Assistant III Assistant Grade IV 1555/2024 Kush Kumar Laboratory 1555/2024 1555/2024 Santosh Kumar Dewangan Sachin Kumar Donode Assistant Laboratory Attendant Lab Assistant 1555/2024 Miss Neha Dubey Assistant Grade III 19 Technical Assistant III Dean Student welfare Skilled Contract 05/03/2010 Lab Attendant Metallurgy Department Contract 22/08/2008 months 14 years 11 months 16 years 6 months Mechanical Engineering Physics Department Electrical Engineering Department Electrical Department Mechanical Workshop Department Mining Engineering Department Department of Metallurgical & Material Engineering Contract 04/02/2013 12 years Contract 21/12/2012 Contract 19/07/2008 12 years and 1 month 16 years 8 months Contract 28/01/2013 12 years Contract 01/02/2012 13 years Contract 04/01/2013 12 years Contract 10/09/2011 13 years 5 months Contract 2011 13 years 1555/2024 1555/2024 1555/2024 Sujit Kumar Kar Laboratory Attendant Electrical Department Manohar Lal Dewangan Lab Attendant Physics Department Miss Sandhya Joshi Laboratory Attendant 1555/2024 Miss Anjali Parate Technical Assistant III Contract 30/07/2008 Contract 19/08/2011 Contract 23/08/2008 Electronics and Communicati on Department Computer Science and Engineering Department 1555/2024 1555/2024 Smt. Deepika Sharma Ujjawala Yadav Metron AG -II Indravati Girls hostel Contract 18/09/2010 Assistant Grade II Electronic & Communicati on Department Contract 2012 1555/2024 1555/2024 1555/2024 Chandrakant Bhanwar Laboratory Attendant NIT Contract 2011 14 years Mohd. Tanveer Khan Rakesh Kumar Junior Engineer Electrical Department Contract 17/02/2012 13 years Technical Assistant III Metallurgical and Material Engineering Department Contract 02/01/2013 12years 1 month 16 years 6 months 13 years 6 months 16 years 5 months 14 years 5 months 13 years 20 1555/2024 Smt. Sudha Giri Technical Assistant III Metallurgical and Material Engineering Department 1555/2024 Ripusudan Lal Sahu Technical Assistant III Mechanical Workshop Department 1555/2024 Damman Kumar Sahu Lab Assistant Electrica Department Contract 11/08/2008 Contract 30/07/2008 03/03/2013 Daily Wages (skill) 1555/2024 Lekhraj sahu Data Entry Operator / Assistant Grade III Examination Cell Contract 15/04/2009 1555/2024 Smt . Manju Verma Grade IV Dean 27/06/2013 Daily Wages (skilled ) Contract 20/07/2009 (research and Consultancy ) Chief Warden (Boys) Office Mechanical Engineering Department Contract 03/01/2013 12 years 1555/2024 1555/2024 Rupendra Kumar Dewangan Tarun Kumar Assistant Grade III Laboratory Assistant 1555/2024 Ishwar Kumar Sahu Assistant Grade II Student Section Contract 22/05/2008 1555/2024 Sabestin Francis Laboratory Assistant NIT Contract 02/01/2013 1555/2024 1555/2024 Pawan kumar Jhariya Assistant Grade II Applied Geology Contract 02/03/2010 Pramod Kumar Sahu Technical Assistant III Physics Department Contract 17/09/2010 Daily wages 15/11/2013 Contract 07/01/2013 contract 01/01/2013 Contract 02/01/2013 1555/2024 Miss Shikha Maturkar Assistant Grade II 6752/2024 Shesh Narayan Verma Technical Assistant III 7160/2024 Om Prakash Sahu Laboratory Assistant 7212/2024 Khagesh Kumar Sahu Technical Assistant III 7224/2024 Dhaneshwar Prasad Verma Laboratory Assistant Department of humanities and Social Sciences Chemistry Department Electronics and Telecommun ication Electronics and Telecommun ication Electronics and Telecommun ication Department Contract 02/01/2012 13 years 16 years 6 months 16 years 7 months 11 Years 11 months 15 years 10 months 11 years 8 months 15 years 9 months 16 years 9 months 12 years 1 month 14 years 11 months 14 years 5 months 11 years 3 months 12 years 1 month 12 years 1 month 12 years 1 month 15. It is evident that the role of the petitioner was not only essential 21 but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 16. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. 17. In the matter of M.L. Kesari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. 22 Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. 23 There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date...." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an 24 exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had 25 served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 18. Further, in the matter of Vinod Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary", but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the 26 sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period 27 through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been 28 made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (emphasis in original)" 29 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 19. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of 30 the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans 31 decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered 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 regularization 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 (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it 32 against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the Country.” 20. Further, in the matter of Manoj Kumar Pradhan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “The High Court has allowed the petition relying judgments in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi on the (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Keshari and others 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein this Court has held that if a 33 person continues to work for 10 years or more on a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of any interim order of the Court or Tribunal, the said employee would be entitled to regularization. In the facts of the present case it is admitted that the respondent has continued to work on contract for over 11 years without any protection of any interim order of a Court or Tribunal. As such, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent is claiming regularization on a post other than the one on which he has been working, which is Pharmacist-cum-Logistic Assistant. We may clarify that the respondent would be entitled to regularization only on the post on which he was appointed and is working at present. The regularization be done within two month from today.” 21. In the matter of Shripal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of regularization, has held as follows:- “16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re- engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. 34 Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.” 22. Considering the facts and circumstance of all the cases in the light of aforementioned judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme 35 Court as well as further considering the factual aspect of the matters, it is apparent that temporary employees cannot be made victim of their temporary service and they are required to be considered for regularization. It is their legitimate expectation to be regularized and they cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as they are serving with the respondent authorities. 23. The Court, in the given facts and circumstances will have to stand by the citizens whose right to life and livelihood is at peril and I will be failing in my duty if I do not stand by them especially when their appointments have been made by due process of law against vacant sanctioned posts after advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that there is any element of illegality in the manner the petitioners had been hired or engaged. 24. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties particularly the fact that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and they have completed more than 10-16 years of their services; further some of the petitioners have filed the earlier writ petitions claiming the relief of regularization, which were disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider their cases for regularization, but the same were not dismissed, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners 36 would be entitled for regularization only on the posts on which they were appointed and are working at present. 25. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the posts being held by them. Their services cannot be dispensed with by the authorities at the belated hour. Steps for their regularization must be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 26. With the aforementioned observation/direction, all the writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge