It was submitted that although in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Ors v. Uma Devi

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

4. The Collector, Sawai Madhopur The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur

5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sawai Madhopur

6. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Shivad, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwada Distt S. Madhopur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/2008 Shivdayal Singh Son of Gajraj Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Gram Shivad District Sawai Madhopur Presently Working On The Post Of Peon In Gram Panchayat Siward Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwara District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). Versus ----Petitioner

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. The Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, General [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (2 of 7) [CW-3567/2008]

4. Administration Department, Secretariat, Jaipur The Collector, Sawai Madhopur The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur

5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sawai Madhopur

6. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Shivad, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwada Distt S. Madhopur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5511/2011

Premchand S/o Shri Nemichand, aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Sikri, Tehsil- Nagar, Dist- Bharatpur.

2. Majeed Khan S/o Shri Aasin Khan, aged about 51 years, R/o Village- Sikri, Tehsil- Nagar, Dist- Bharatpur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Cum- Commissioner Panchayat Raj Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur. Panchayat Samiti Nagar, District Bharatpur, Through Its Development Officer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amir Aziz For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025

1. All the above three petitions involved almost similar facts and grievances hence, all the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (3 of 7) [CW-3567/2008]

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners were initially appointed as Octroi Clerk in different Panchayats however, after abolition of Octroi system, their services were transferred to Panchayat Raj Department. They have been working for more than 30 years, yet are being paid a meager amount of salary to the tune of Rs.1500 per month. It was submitted that although in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given direction to the State Government to frame schemes for regularization of all such persons who completed 10 or more years of service on the date of judgment of Uma Devi i.e. on 10.04.2006, yet no consideration for regularization of the petitioner has been done so far.

3. Learned counsel also submits that pursuant to aforesaid judgment, the State Government has made amendment in the Class-IV Service Rules vide notification dated 27.02.2009 where the persons working for more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 were required to be screened for the purpose of regularization, yet such benefits has not been given to the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted that most of the employees who were earlier working in Octroi system, after abolition of the same were considered by the respondents and have been regularized/absorbed on the post of Gramsewak but such benefits has not been granted to the petitioners only on account of fact that they were not possessing the qualification of Secondary Examination. Learned counsels further stated that even if they are not qualified for the post of Gramsewak, yet they can be considered against the post of Class-IV employee. It has been [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (4 of 7) [CW-3567/2008] submitted that non-consideration for regularization and continuing the petitioner against negligible salary amounts to exploitation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the State Government has made compliance of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rules have also been framed however, under the Panchayat Raj Service Rules, 1996, post of Class-IV employee is not a sanctioned post, hence the petitioners could not be considered for regularization. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in so many cases where the persons were having qualification of 10th Class, they have been considered and regularized on the post of Gramsewak.

6. I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Although, it is an admitted case of both the sides that the petitioners were not initially appointed through regular recruitment process, yet it is a fact that the petitioners are continuing for last more than 30 years. The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) although deprecates the system appointing the persons in violation of the recruitment Rules, yet looking to the pathetic conditions where the employees were continued for decades in hope of regularization, directions were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the State Government for framing scheme for the welfare of such employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Such directions cannot be brushed aside or diluted by the respondents by putting forward the lame excuse with regard to non-sanction of post. Recently, in the case [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (5 of 7) [CW-3567/2008] of Dharm Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2025 (1) NSC 998 the Hoble Supreme Court has reiterated the earlier judgment of Uma Devi (supra) and also considered the judgments 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 and following observations have been given:

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. I cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 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 establisliment (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 prolonged insecurity [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (6 of 7) [CW-3567/2008] 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 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 (1), 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 Judgment. months

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here [2025:RJ-JP:33376] (7 of 7) [CW-3567/2008] comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Thus, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents-State to consider the length of service rendered by the petitioner with a lable of temporary/irregular/contractual employees for more than 3 decades and also to consider their case for regularization in the light of the recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharm Singh (supra) and to carry out necessary exercise within four months for the purpose of passing necessary orders in the light of aforesaid judgement.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of with above directions. NEERU /8-10-11 (ANAND SHARMA),J