Dausa v. Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government

3. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Shri Asharam, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Raigar Mohalla, Ward No. 26, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) Presently Working As Cook, Government Hostel, Falodi Quari, District Sawai Madhopur.

4. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash Garg, Presently Working As A Cook, Government Hostel, Mala Road, Kota.

5. Madan Lal Yogi S/o Shri Dhula Nath, R/o Gadigal, Post Bayana, District Bundi Presently Working As A Watchman, Ambedkar Hostel, Bundi-I.

6. Manoj Kumar Yogi S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, R/o Banskho, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Presently Working As A Cook, Government Hostel, Banskho, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

7. Shyam Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ganesh Ji Sharma, R/o Mukam Post Soniyana, Post Pachmata, Via Gilund (Rajsamand) Presently Working As A Cook, Fateh Parisar, District Udaipur.

8. Suresh Chand S/o Shri Sayar Mal Bambi, R/o Goviliya, Tehsil Bhinay, District Ajmer, Presently Working As Cook In Ambedkar Hostel, Masuda, District Ajmer.

9. Santosh W/o Shri Latur Lal, R/o Gari Mohalla Bada Talab, Kavai, District Baran, Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Hostel, Katai, District Baran.

10. Bhuri Bai W/o Shri Hukmi Chand Menariya, R/o C/o Ramlal 216, Bhatt Talai, Paneriya Ki Madri, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Fateh Parisar, District Udaipur.

11. Vilos Bai W/o Shri Naresh Chandel, C/o Ghanshyam Sankhla, R/o 4-B, Housing Board, Bundi Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Hostel, Bundi.

12. Basanti W/o Shri Phool Chand C/o Ghanshyam Sankhla, R/o 4-B, Housing Board, Bundi Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Hostel, Bundi.

13. Devi Lal S/o Shri Keshra Ji Meena, R/o Mukam Post Mashro Ki Obri, Tehsil Kesariya Ji, Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Boys Hostel, Babrana, Udaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (3 of 21) [CW-1422/2007]

14. Smt. Ganga Bai W/o Late Shri Kanti Lal Ji Sevda, R/o Mukam Post Jhadol, Tehsil Jhadol (Falasiya), District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Girls Hostel, Jhadol, Udaipur.

15. Dhula Ram S/o Shri Ramaji Gagar, R/o Village And Post Amliya, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Girls Hostel, District Udaipur.

16. Savita W/o Shri Laxman Ji Kharadi, R/o Village And Post Ogan, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Jawas, District Udaipur.

17. Smt. Tulsi W/o Shri Chaturbhuj Ji Vaishnav, R/o Rebariyo Ka Guda, Post Dhikli, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Boys Hostel-Ii, Udaipur.

18. Smt. Durga Bai W/o Shri Mohan Ji Gameti, R/o Pratap Nagar, Dhikli Road, Near Rto Old Office, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Boys Hostel-I, Udaipur.

19. Smt. Lali Bai W/o Shri Prakash Ji Vaishnav, R/o Rebariyo Ka Guda, Post Dhikli, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Government Ambedkar Boys Hostel-I, Udaipur.

20. Ramdhan Balai S/o Chotu Lal, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Bhinai, (Ajmer), Presently Working As Chokidar, Govt. Hostel, Sarwar (Ajmer).

21. Kali Bai W/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena, R/o Pipalkhoont, District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Pipalkhoont, District Udaipur.

22. Smt. Ramila W/o Shri Laxman Meena, R/o Pipalkhoont, District Udaipur, Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Hostel, Pipalkhoont, District Udaipur.

23. Tejpal Ahari S/o Shri Khema, R/o Bhootrikalan Doodwa Khairwada, District Udaipur Presently Working As Cook, Madar, Tehsil Badagon, District Udaipur.

24. Panna Lal Patel S/o Shri Nana Ji Patel, R/o Mukam Post Jhadol, Tehsil Jhadol (Falasiya), District Udiapur, Presently Working As Cook, Ambedkar Boys Hostel, Gogla, Udaipur.

25. Rajendra Meena S/o Shri Ramphool, R/o Sikodi, Tehsil Banskho, District Jaipur Presently Working As A Part Time [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (4 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Employee, Government Hostel, Banskho, Jaipur.

26. Suman W/o Chanda Lal, R/o Jhalrapatan District Jhalawar, Presently Working As Cook, Govt. Hostel, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar

27. Santosh W/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Atru, District Baran, Presently Working As Cook, Govt. Hostel, Atru, District Baran

28. Anguri Bai @ Tara W/o Bhanwar Lal Ji Khatik, R/o Sikandra Tehsil Sikrai District Dausa, Presently Working As Cook, Govt. Hostel, Bassi, District Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

3. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Sawai Madhopur.

4. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Karauli

5. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ajmer

6. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Udaipur.

7. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaipur.

8. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Kota.

9. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Bundi.

10. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Baran.

11. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jhalawar. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 434/2021 Girdhari Lal S/o Viramlal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sarola Kala ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (5 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Dist. Jhalawar Presently Working Part-Time Employee Government College Sarola Kala Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Trough Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

3. Dy. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jhalawar ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2348/2023 Chandrakala W/o Shri Prakash Chand, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhanava Gate, Picheshawar Colony, District Bundi, Presently Working As Cook, Rasoiya D.c. Hostel, Dolada, Dolada Road, Bundi. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2914/2023

1. Kripa Ram Son Of Faddiram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Rajoriyakalan Presently Working As Ambedhkar Hostel, Mania District Dholpur.

2. Ramkali Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of District Dholpur, Presently Working As Ambedhkar Hostel, Mania District Dholpur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (6 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2915/2023 Savitri Bai Wife Of Badri Lal Tailor, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Bakani, District Jhalawar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2916/2023 Jagdish Chand Meghwal Son Of Rodu Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Sunel, District Jhalawar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2917/2023 Shayam Lal Meghwal Son Of Shri Rodulal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Bakani, District Jhalawar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (7 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2919/2023 Kamlesh Kumar Son Of Radheshyam, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Pidava, District Jhalawar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2920/2023 Puri Lal Son Of Ramnarayan, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Aklera, District Jhalawar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/2023 Guddi Bai W/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Resident Of Mukam Post Chardana, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan Presently Working As A Class Iv Servant, Govt. Girls Hostel, Chardana, Baran. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (8 of 21) [CW-1422/2007]

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2023

1. Balaram Son Of Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of District Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Unhail Nageshwar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

2. Munna Bai Wife Of Ramsingh, Resident Of Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Unhail Nageshwar, District Jhalawar.

3. Ramkanya Bai Wife Of Deepchand, Resident Of Jhalawar, Presently Working Ambedkar Hostel, Aklera, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3318/2023 Mohan Prakash Son Of Ram Ratan, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Diholi Post Karwakherli Tehsil Rajakheda District Dholpur, Rajasthan Presently Working As A Class Iv Servant, Govt. Hostel. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6954/2023

1. Rajendra Son Of Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post Balvan Tehsil Indergarh District ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (9 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Bundi, Rajasthan.

2. Shanti Devi Wife Of Ramavtar Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Near Dr. Tripathi Tonk, Rajasthan. Both Petitioners Are Presently Working As Class Iv Servant, Resident Senior Secondary School, Vazirpura, Tonk. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur.

3. Principal, Senior Secondary School, Vazirpura, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7232/2023 Satyanarayan Sharma Son Of Jagnnath Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Hart Bazaar, Atru, District Baran, Presently Working As Electrician Residence Senior Secondary School, Atru, Baran. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur.

3. Principal, Senior Secondary School, Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7681/2023

1. Nandkishor Son Of Birdhi Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Atru, District Baran. Presently Working As Class-Iv Employee Residence School Atru, Baran.

2. Mahendra Kumar Son Of Laxmi Chand, Resident Of Atru, District Baran. Presently Working As Class-Iv Employee Residence School Atru, Baran. [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (10 of 21) [CW-1422/2007]

3. Satyanarayan Saini Son Of Mangilal, Resident Of Atru, District Baran. Presently Working As Class-Iv Employee Residence School Atru, Baran. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur.

3. Principal, Senior Secondary School, Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11161/2024 Satyanarayan Meena Son Of Duli Chand, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Prapti Post Maithun Dist. Jhalawar, Rajasthan, Presently Working Devnarayan Hostel, Aklera District Jhalawar. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, District Jhalawar. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16127/2024 Sarbjeet Kaur @ Nitu W/o Late Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bhoi Mohalla, Dr. Sukh Lal Ji Gali, Chawani, Kota, Presently Working At Savitri Bai Phule Hostel, Kota. Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (11 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C. Sharma with Ms. Nidhi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj on behalf of Mr. Amitosh Pareek, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/09/2025

1. Facts and question of law involved in all the above writ petitions, are more or less similar, hence, with the consent of the parties, these writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by the instant common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1422/2007 are being taken into consideration.

3. It has been stated in above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1422/2007 that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Cook/Chowkidar in the Hostels run by Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the year 1995. Since then, they are continuously in the service of respondents, however, are being paid the meager amount towards monthly salary, which is exploitation of the petitioners. It has been submitted that work of Cook/Chowkidar is perennial in nature and the petitioners were also entitled for regularization and for payment of pay in regular pay scale in the same manner in which the other regularly appointed Class-IV employees in respondent-Department are getting the benefits. It is submitted that although in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (12 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] (2006) 4 SCC 1, the practice of appointing a person on daily wages basis, contractual basis or ad hoc basis was deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet directions were given in Para 53 of the aforesaid judgment to frame scheme for regularization of such irregularly appointed persons. In the light of aforesaid judgment, the State Government also made amendment in the Rajasthan Class-IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 vide notification dated 27.02.2009, whereby all those persons who had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 were screened by the duly constituted screening committee and on being found eligible, benefit of regularization was granted to them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as the judgment of in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8558/2018) decided on

19.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the petitioners were initially engaged without following any due process of selection and they are not holding any substantive post in respondent-Department. Only the persons substantively appointed or against a sanctioned post can claim benefit of regularization and regular pay scale. In the instant case, by reason of mere long continuance of the petitioners without there being any regular appointment, no right is conferred upon them to seek regularization. [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (13 of 21) [CW-1422/2007]

7. Heard and considered. The similar issue was raised before this Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8332/2002) decided on 29.08.2025, where after considering all the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court observed as under:- It has come on record that although the post on which "12. the petitioner is working was sanctioned but only to be filled through contract. Such sanction used to be issued only for a particular year and thereafter again in the next year, separate budgets were allotted. Thus, the sanction was also issued year to year for continuing the petitioner on contract basis. The petitioner was still continued in the respondent-Department for around 27 years, which gives rise to the presumption that the work assigned to the petitioner was of perennial nature and cannot be said to be a temporary work or a project for a limited period.

13. The respondents under these circumstances cannot show their inability to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by stating to the post that was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority. The State, being a model employer cannot be allowed to put forward such lame excuses just to exploit the citizens. The petitioner has admittedly rendered pretty long services with the respondents and his rights are to be protected by way of framing proper Scheme. It has been informed that although in compliance of earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), the State came out with Regularization Scheme in the form of notification dated 27.02.2009, yet a rider was put by the respondents that such considerations would be only in the case of regular sanctioned post. 14. It would also be relevant to refer that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the similar circumstances in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8558/2018) decided on 19.08.2025 where after considering the cases of Umadevi (supra), Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "(1) When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (14 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] the subsequent strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work. (3) By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission1 (Respondent No. 2 herein) for regularization. Moreover, the Court observed that no vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered. (4.7) By judgment dated 19.05.2009, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no rules for regularisation in the Commission had been shown and that even assuming the 1998 Regularisation Rules applied, there were no vacancies for the appellants. Moreover, the Single Judge held that regularisation was impermissible in view of the law declared in Secretary, State of Karnataka. v. Umadevi3 and allied precedents. It was also observed that the petitioners (appellants herein) had not specifically decision dated assailed 25.11.2003. (4.8) The appellants preferred Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal, observing that the appellants were daily wagers, that there were no rules for regularisation in the Commission and that no vacancy existed for considering them. (6) The question before us is whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants' principal challenge to the State's refusals to sanction posts and treating the matter as a mere plea for regularization, and, if so, given the appellants' long and undisputed service, what appropriate relief ought to follow from this Court. (7) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are unable to endorse the approach adopted by the High Court. The original writ petition before the High Court expressly assailed the State's refusal dated 11.11.1999 to sanction posts for the Commission and sought a mandamus for creation of posts with consequential consideration for the appellants. The Single Judge of the High Court, and the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, treated the matter as a bare plea for regularisation, answered it only on the touchstone of absence of rules and [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (15 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] vacancy, and rested principally on Umadevi (Supra). In doing so, the Courts below failed to adjudicate the principal challenge to the State's refusal and the legality of its reasons. In our opinion, such non-consideration amounts to a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to exercise jurisdiction. (8) The State's refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial constraints” and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court's direction to reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the Commission's 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution. (11) Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (16 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily- wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well- established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “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 [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (17 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] Government exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. 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. ………

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 labelled 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, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (18 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] increasingly resort • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions 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, unforeseen circumstances.”” (12) We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in 21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource Class-IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades. (13) As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full- time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (19 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. (15) Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. (19) Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (20 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment." In the light of above observations given by the Hon’ble 15. Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of 16. the petitioner for regularization in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found fit for regularization, consequential benefits of difference of pay and arrears thereof be also given to be petitioner within the aforesaid period."

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, where looking to the long continuance for decades directions have already been given to consider the cases of similar situated persons in the light of judgment of Dharam Singh (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions with the similar directions.

9. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of petitioners for regularization in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) and to pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are found fit and eligible for regularization then [2025:RJ-JP:39137] (21 of 21) [CW-1422/2007] consequential benefits of difference of pay and arrears shall also be given to the petitioners within the aforesaid period.

11. All the above writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Office is directed to keep one copy of this order in each connected file. DIVYA /10-31 except 11-29-30 (ANAND SHARMA),J