(Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others v. Rakesh Kumar and another) Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130884-DB Chief Justice's Court Case

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has allowed Original Application No. 1523 of 2011 (Rakesh Kumar vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others) filed by respondent No. 1 (in short 'respondent'). The Tribunal has quashed the order dated

06.05.2011 impugned in Original Application and issued a direction to the petitioners to take back respondent in service, if he is not reached at the age of superannuation and, thereafter, proceed to regularize his services in accordance with law. Further direction has been issued by the Tribunal that, in case, respondent has crossed the age of superannuation, pensionery benefits be extended to him, however he would not be entitled for any back- wages/salary for the period, he was out of service, but the said period would be counted for pensionery benefits only. Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another)

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as a part-time Sweeper in the petitioners' department in the year

1981. He continuously worked there till May, 2010. He moved a representation on 20.05.1998 praying for regularization of his services. Relying upon the order passed by the Deputy General Manager (Admin), U.P. (East), Lucknow whereby the services of other casual labourers were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2000, further applications were moved by the respondent.

4. The case of the respondent (petitioner before the Tribunal) was that the petitioners had orally terminated his services on

12.05.2010 and when his grievance was not redressed at departmental level, he filed O.A. No. 882 of 2010, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 17.06.2010 directing the petitioners to decide representation submitted by the respondent. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent submitted another representation and, then, filed contempt application, in which notices were issued, whereafter, by order dated 06.05.2011, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected. Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the petitioners, Original Application giving rise to the present writ petition was filed, which has been allowed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid terms.

5. The case of the respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing response before the Tribunal. On perusal of the said response, it stands reflected that except supporting the orders passed by the officials, no specific plea was raised as to why the respondent was not entitled to get similar treatment as had been 2 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) accorded to other casual labourers. Nevertheless, the petitioners took a plea that certain departmental circulars could not be given effect to in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as per certain departmental circulars, services of the respondent could not be regularized merely at the strength of length of service in such capacity. Submission has been made that the Tribunal has not given any thoughtful consideration to the circulars, which were there on record and, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside and Original Application should be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the judgement of the Tribunal.

8. It is not in dispute that the initial engagement of the respondent as a Sweeper was made in the year 1981 and that he continued to work in the same capacity upto May, 2010 when, orally, he was asked not to come to the department. The Tribunal has considered the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024 and SLP ( C) No. 11086 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online 3826, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered its previous decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and held as under: - “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long 3 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) 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 However, where circumvent constitutional requirements. 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 judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was 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 judgement 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, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 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…” 4 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another)

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 sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

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 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 5 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) 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 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.” (emphasis supplied)

9. The above referred paragraphs of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jaggo (supra) have been reproduced by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the present writ petition and it has been held by the Tribunal that since respondent had worked for 29 years in the department showing a long term need of his 6 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) services, termination of his services without proper reason is unfair and arbitrary. The Tribunal has further observed that the respondent had a reasonable expectation of job security or regularization and when services of similar workers were regularized, denying the same benefit to the respondent was discriminatory and termination of his services was done in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) and observed that long term workers should be considered for regularization if they have served for more than statutory period.

10. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to submit that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) would not apply in view of departmental circulars, we are not inclined to accept the submission so advanced, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) itself has considered similar situation as has arisen in the present case and, after discussing concept of irregular, illegal, ad- hoc, temporary and regular services and also its previous decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra), it has been held that 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’s morale. It has further been observed that by ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold 7 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.

11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal and we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) in the facts of the case before it.

12. The writ petition has no substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ) 8 of 8

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as a part-time Sweeper in the petitioners' department in the year

1981. He continuously worked there till May, 2010. He moved a representation on 20.05.1998 praying for regularization of his services. Relying upon the order passed by the Deputy General Manager (Admin), U.P. (East), Lucknow whereby the services of other casual labourers were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2000, further applications were moved by the respondent.

4. The case of the respondent (petitioner before the Tribunal) was that the petitioners had orally terminated his services on

12.05.2010 and when his grievance was not redressed at departmental level, he filed O.A. No. 882 of 2010, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 17.06.2010 directing the petitioners to decide representation submitted by the respondent. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent submitted another representation and, then, filed contempt application, in which notices were issued, whereafter, by order dated 06.05.2011, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected. Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the petitioners, Original Application giving rise to the present writ petition was filed, which has been allowed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid terms.

5. The case of the respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing response before the Tribunal. On perusal of the said response, it stands reflected that except supporting the orders passed by the officials, no specific plea was raised as to why the respondent was not entitled to get similar treatment as had been 2 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) accorded to other casual labourers. Nevertheless, the petitioners took a plea that certain departmental circulars could not be given effect to in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as per certain departmental circulars, services of the respondent could not be regularized merely at the strength of length of service in such capacity. Submission has been made that the Tribunal has not given any thoughtful consideration to the circulars, which were there on record and, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside and Original Application should be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the judgement of the Tribunal.

8. It is not in dispute that the initial engagement of the respondent as a Sweeper was made in the year 1981 and that he continued to work in the same capacity upto May, 2010 when, orally, he was asked not to come to the department. The Tribunal has considered the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024 and SLP ( C) No. 11086 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online 3826, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered its previous decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and held as under: - “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long 3 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) 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 However, where circumvent constitutional requirements. 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 judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was 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 judgement 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, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 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…” 4 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another)

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 sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

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 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 5 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) 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 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.” (emphasis supplied)

9. The above referred paragraphs of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jaggo (supra) have been reproduced by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the present writ petition and it has been held by the Tribunal that since respondent had worked for 29 years in the department showing a long term need of his 6 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) services, termination of his services without proper reason is unfair and arbitrary. The Tribunal has further observed that the respondent had a reasonable expectation of job security or regularization and when services of similar workers were regularized, denying the same benefit to the respondent was discriminatory and termination of his services was done in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) and observed that long term workers should be considered for regularization if they have served for more than statutory period.

10. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to submit that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) would not apply in view of departmental circulars, we are not inclined to accept the submission so advanced, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) itself has considered similar situation as has arisen in the present case and, after discussing concept of irregular, illegal, ad- hoc, temporary and regular services and also its previous decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra), it has been held that 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’s morale. It has further been observed that by ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold 7 of 8 Writ A No. 10925 of 2025 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 2 others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another) the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.

11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal and we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) in the facts of the case before it.

12. The writ petition has no substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ) 8 of 8