Dhamankala, Post Gambhira, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. Addl. District Collctor (Development), Zila Gramin Vikas Abhikaran Agency (DRDA), Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Shanker Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divya Rathore, Adv. for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 26/08/2025 Order

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated

06.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the prayer made by the appellant seeking directions to grant regular pay-scale of Class-IV employee with consequential benefits w.e.f.

10.07.1986 and also interest on the arrears and also to comply with the award dated 02.02.1994 were rejected.

2. The facts need to be noticed for adjudication of the case are that the appellant was appointed on 10.07.1986 as a daily wager [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (2 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] Class-IV Employee with the respondent No.3 and his services were dispensed on 08.08.1987. He raised an industrial dispute and award came to be passed on 02.02.1994 reinstating him with

continuity of service. The award had been challenged before this Court by the State and was upheld vide order dated 06.11.2000 by the learned Single Bench and by the Division Bench vide order dated 02.03.2001. He was ultimately reinstated and was placed in the same position as he stood on the day of his appointment. While working as an Assistant at the Hostel Ashram Chatrawas, he was being paid daily wages @ Rs.259/- per day and attained superannuation and retired vide order dated 27.02.2024 w.e.f.

29.02.2024.

3. The claim of the appellant for treating him as regular employee arises on the basis of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.: (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (3 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents."

4. The aforesaid position of law was again considered by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India: 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has held as under:- "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 [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (4 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] 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." .........

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 [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (5 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

5. Again in the case of Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad: 2025 SCC online SC 221, the Apex Court held as under:- ".17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (6 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment Rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period."

6. Thus we examined the facts of the case, we find that the appellant has continued to serve the respondents for almost 28 years till he attained superannuation on 29.02.2024. The services would, therefore, come within the ambit of perennial in nature and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no post existing for the work which he had been performing. The labour temporary and daily wages as used for denying him the benefit as a clear misuse of power. Keeping in line the consideration as laid down hereinabove, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the law as settled by the Supreme Court and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated

06.05.2022, therefore, cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration as on the day when Umadevi’s judgment was pronounced, the petitioner has completed more than ten years of service. Keeping in view thereto, we hold that the petitioner was entitled to be regularised on completion of ten years of service, i.e., w.e.f. 10.07.1996. We are pained to observed that respondents have failed to perform [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (7 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] their legal duty for implementing Umadevi’s judgment in the case of petitioner.

7. In line with the aforesaid judgments, recently in Dharm Singh Vs. State of UP: 2025 INSC 998, the Supreme has held that the State and its Authorities cannot act as private employers it has coined the terms Constitutional Employer to the State and employees working with the State would have to be considered and regularized on account of the perennial work available with them. In view of the continuous litigation coming up, the Apex Court observed as under:- "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. It 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 [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (8 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] 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 prolonged insecurity 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (9 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] 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 Judgement. 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 Judgement. 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 Judgement. [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (10 of 11) [SAW-937/2022]

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 comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a 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. We need not further delve on the said issue at our level after the pronouncement of the Apex Court and conclude that the action of the respondents deserves to be deprecated. The appellant who has attained superannuation would be entitled to be considered as regularized on the post on completion of 10 years of service. His pay and allowances shall accordingly be calculated and actual [2025:RJ-JP:33981-DB] (11 of 11) [SAW-937/2022] arrears of salary after deducting daily wages amount paid to him shall be released within the period of three months. The respondents shall also make pay fixation including the benefits of ACP applicable on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service and pay the arrears. The pension shall also be calculated and accordingly released along with all other retiral benefits after deducting the benefits which have been released to the appellant which may include gratuity amount. The entire exercise shall be conducted within a period of three months. The appellant would also be entitled to receive interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum. So far as pension and retiral benefits are concerned.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/134