Writ Petition No. 17031 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 17031 OF 2021 (S-CAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15836 OF 2021 (S-CAT) IN WP No. 17031/2021 IN O.A.NO.170/01083/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, (APPEALS), MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01084/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: MUNISWAMY A, S/O LATE ARUMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (I & CI), C.R.BUILDING, ANNEXE, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU. R/O BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01085/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: RAVI. M S/O. MARIE, …PETITIONERS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01086/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 …RESPONDENT …PETITIONERS UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01087/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMESH. S, S/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01088/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: KUMBAR MALLAPPA BASAPPA, S/O LATE KUMBA BASAPPA BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD NO.1, GADAG, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 IN O.A.NO.170/01089/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
Legal Reasoning
is concerned, we are of the view that the respondents were granted temporary status in terms of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 paragraph No.8 thereof contemplates as under: “8. Procedure for filling up of Group `D’ posts Two out of every three vacancies in Group `D’ cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group `D’ staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularisation will be - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer.” In the present case, the respondents were granted temporary status in the year 2000. No attempt was made to regularize the services of the respondents in terms of paragraph No.8 of the said scheme. On the contrary, they continued the services of the respondents even thereafter. It was only when the regularization of services was not made, the respondents had approached the Tribunal seeking the prayer of regularization which has been granted in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. -Vs.- Ilmo Devi and Anr. [2021 20 SCC 290], more specifically at paragraph No.14, which we reproduce as under to contend that in terms of the said judgment, the directions for regularization could not have been given by the Tribunal: - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 “14. Even the regularisation policy to regularise the services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so. In R.S. Bhonde [State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde, (2005) 6 SCC 751 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 907] , it is observed and held by this Court that the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post. It is further observed that mere continuance every year of seasonal work during the period when work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists a post and regularisation is done.” 10. Suffice to state, in the latest opinion, the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Others -Vs.- Union of India and Others [(2024) 9 SCC 327], has in paragraph No.5 onwards, held as under:- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the 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 - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 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 (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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 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 Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . 7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] also distinguished between “irregular” and - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 “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. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42) 23] , R.N. and B.N. cases where in S.V. Narayanappa [State “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as of explained Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC Nanjundappa [R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] 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 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 abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the their Governments to should instrumentalities regularise as a one-time measure, the services State steps take and - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 filled up, 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 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) 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 recognise 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment [Vinod Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016 SCC OnLine All 4489] of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts. - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.
Arguments
(BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: ANNADURAI, S/O LATE M. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01090/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: V. SHIVA SHANKAR, S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01091/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: FRANK ANTHONY REGO, S/O S. A. FRANCIS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O. NO.25/1, UNITY LINE, EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01092/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: H. NANJUNDAIAH, S/O HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01093/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAKASHA. M, S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01094/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: S. MAHENDRA VERMA, S/O K. V. SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O. NO.33, SNT STREET, NALA ROAD, GUPTA LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01095/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: MOHAN. G, S/O GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU, R/O BENGALURU. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/01096/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: GANESH M. KADARGUNTI, S/O LATE MUTTELTAPPA, …RESPONDENT …PETITIONERS - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASUAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, R/O HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA NOS.170/01083/2019 TO 170/01096/2019, ETC. IN WP NO. 15836/2021 IN O.A.NO.170/00592/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: M P KRISHNA, S/O SRI PUTTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, OCCUPATION: CAUSAL LABOUR ON TEMPORARY STATUS, O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6 (3), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. IN O.A.NO.170/00636/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS …PETITIONERS - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: HANUMANTHARAYAPPA A V, S/O SHRI ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4 (3), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. IN O.A.NO.170/00637/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: G GANESH, S/O SHRI GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, …PETITIONERS - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 RANGE-1(2), 1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/00638/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: DANIEL J A, S/O SHRI A JEYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O THE COMMOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 IN O.A.NO.170/00639/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: ABDUL SAMEEL A, S/O SHRI ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL)-9, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/00640/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS S RAMESH, S/O SHRI SHIVANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TP), RANGE-1, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/00641/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 …PETITIONERS QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVA KUMAR, S/O SHRI BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) IN O.A.NO.170/00642/2019 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 AND: SHANTHARAJU K, S/O SHRI KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SWEEPER CUM WATCHMAN, O/O PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. T C GUPTA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN OA NO.170/00592/2019 AND 170/00636 TO 00642/2019, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in these writ petitions is primarily to the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in batch of Original Applications in OAs No.170/01083/2019 to 170/01096/2019, 170/00592/ 2019, 170/00636/2019 to 170/00642/2019 whereby the Tribunal has decided the same in favour of the respondents herein by stating in paragraphs No.19 and 20 as under: In OA Nos.170/01083/2019 and connected matters: “19. In the conspectus of discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, all the above captioned Original Applications deserve to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the Original Application Nos. 170/01083/2019, 170/01084/2019, 170/01085/2019, 170/01086/2019, 170/01087/2019, 170/01088/2019, 170/01089/2019, 170/01090/2019, 170/01091/2019, 170/01092/2019, 170/01093/2019, 170/01094/2019, 170/01095/2019, 170/01096/2019 are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for regularization of their services from the dates they have completed 10 years in service with all consequential benefits. Let the respondents comply - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 with this order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of it's certified copy.” In OA Nos.170/00592/2019 and connected matters: “19. In the conspectus of discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the present Original Applications deserve to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the Original Applications are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the applicants’ cases for regularization of their services from the dates they have completed 10 years in service with all consequential benefits. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of it’s certified copy.” 2. The facts to be noted are, the respondents herein, who are 22 in number, were initially engaged by the petitioners on casual basis on 01.08.1997. While they were working, on 13.06.2000, the petitioners granted temporary status to the respondents and to other similarly situated persons. 3. It was the case of the respondents that, on completion of three years of casual service, they were entitled to regularization of their services, as there were - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 clear vacancies available in the Department, in the cadre of Group-D post along with seniority and other benefits. However, the petitioners have not regularized their services. It was also averred that in similar Commissionerates like in UP West, Ghaziabad; Odisha, Bhubaneshwar; Kolkata, Lucknow and Patna, similarly placed employees have been regularized between the years 2009 and 2010. It was in this background, they had approached the Tribunal. 4. The petitioners’ stand before the Tribunal was that, the respondents were engaged on casual basis on 01.08.1997 and they were granted temporary status on 13.06.2000. As per the DOPT OM dated 16.10.2014, following the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, all the Group-D posts have been upgraded as Group-C posts. Recruitment to erstwhile Group-D posts placed in Group-C PB-1 with grade pay Rs.1,800/- (Non-technical) MT Staff are now being made only through Staff Selection Commission and minimum educational qualification for appointment to the said post is - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 matriculation or ITI pass. Regularization of casual labourers with temporary status, therefore cannot be made by the Ministries/Departments on their own and the same requires relaxation of paragraph No.8 of the OM dated 10.09.1993. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others -Vs.- Umadevi and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to contend that regularization is a onetime measure and it is not a continuous process. Since the respondents had less than ten years of service to their credit on 10.04.2006, therefore in terms of CBDT letter dated 22.07.2009, their services were not regularized. The Tribunal has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ravi Verma and Others -Vs.- Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal No.2795-2796/2018, decided on 13.03.2018], State of Gujarat and Others -Vs.- PWD Employees Union and Others [2013-III-LLJ-665 (SC)] and Narendra Kumar Tiwari -Vs.- State of Jharkhand [(2018) 8 SCC 238] and judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Devi Dass -Vs.- Union - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 of India and Others [CWP No.27795/2013] and Sarup Singh -Vs.- Union of India and Others [CWP No.24963/2014] in support of its conclusion that the petitioners should consider the respondents’ cases for regularization from the dates they have completed ten years of service with all consequential benefits. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is primarily reiteration of the stand, as was taken before the Tribunal. It is contended that, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) is clear in terms of paragraph No.53 that only in the case of an irregular appointment, and the casual labour has completed ten years of engagement on the date of judgment, his case is required to be considered. In other words, completion of ten years after the date of Judgment would not entitle the casual labourer the benefit of regularization. That apart, it is her submission that, the regular appointment has to be undertaken through the process of Staff Selection Commission and as the Group-D posts have been abolished, - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 the necessary regularization has to be in Group-C subject to they fulfilling the qualifications. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would justify the order of the Tribunal. He has referred to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo -Vs.- Union of India and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] to contend that, the Supreme Court had directed the respondents therein to regularize forthwith the appellants therein. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Insofar as the plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is on completion of 10 years of engagement (on the date of Judgment) in terms of paragraph No.53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra), if the appointment is irregular, the casual labourers need to be regularized is concerned, an identical issue was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others -Vs.- - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 M.L. Kesari and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 247], wherein in paragraph No.10, the Supreme Court has held as under: “10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , the employer - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , are so considered.” 8. During the course of hearing, it is conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that there was no interim protection granted in favour of the respondents by any Court before the year 2021 when these petitions were filed. In that sense, the respondents continued to work from 1997 till 2021 continuously without any protection. It is her submission, on the strength of the order passed on 17.11.2021 in WP No.15836/2021, wherein the Court had held that the respondents shall not be discharged from the service, that the respondents are continuing in service. Suffice to state, if the respondents continued to be engaged from 1997 till date, surely they have put in more than 27 years of service. So the question is, whether the respondents are entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of the impugned judgment? Insofar as the judgment in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra) is concerned, - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 we have already reproduced paragraph No.10 of the said judgment where the Supreme Court has granted the benefit in terms of paragraph No.53 of Umadevi’s case (supra) to those casual labourers who were not given the benefit of that judgment within six months. 9. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no Group-D posts and the post of MTS is in Group-C grade which need to be filled through SSC
Decision
10. No order as to costs.” 11. That apart, even in a further latest opinion the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), has, in paragraph No.10 onwards, held as under: “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to to regularization. 16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed— cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle. 18. The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees working as the Multi-Tasking Staff published by the Respondent Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 following employees were a part of the staff without the required educational qualification: Name S. No. Education al Qualificati on Category Date of Continuous CWC Service Temporary or Permanent posts 1. Krishna s/o Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC Lt. Khajan Singh 2. Naresh Devi w/o Ld. Surendra Kumar Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen 3. Shiv Kumar Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC s/o Lt. Pratap Singh 4. Radhe Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC Shyam s/o Lt. Sadhu Ram Maurya 5. Raju s/o Shri Banshi Lal Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC 6. Shahjad Ali Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen s/o Naushad Ali 7. Punam w/o Lt. Raj Kumar 8. Nirmala w/o Lt. Raju Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 department's approach. Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in law. 19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential 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. 20. 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. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 India5, it was held that 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 this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (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 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, the which distinguishes appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). their case from 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (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 - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 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 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, - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 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 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 Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 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 Uma Devi (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 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 - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 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. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. 29. There shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the position of law, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the conclusion arrived at by the - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:9706-DB WP No. 17031 of 2021 C/W WP No. 15836 of 2021 Tribunal is justified. Additionally, the petitioners have not denied the fact that in other Commissionerates, similarly placed casual labourers’ services have been regularized. So, it follows the directions of the Tribunal need no interference, that too when we are exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly dismiss the petitions. 13. In view of dismissal of the petitions, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29