High Court · 2025

Mr. M.C. Pant , Advocat e t he pet it ioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. in Governm ent Pet it ioners w ere appoint ed on cont r act 2. as Facult y I .T.I ., Pines, Nainit al, run by Social Welfare Depart m ent , in differ ent year s. t hem have com plet ed m ore t han 10 years of service as Cont ract Facult y. Since regularizat ion has not been considered so far, t her efore, pet it ioners hav e approached t his Court for relief. t heir claim All of Since com m on quest ions of law and 3. fact are involved in t hese writ pet it ions, t her efore t hey ar e heard t oget her and are being decided by a com m on j udgm ent . Howev er , for t he sake of br evit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No.3249 of 2018 alone are being consider ed and discussed. I n Writ Pet it ion

4. 2018, t he following relief has been sought : ( S/ S) No.3249 of “ I . I ssue a writ , rule or direct ion in nat ure of cert iorarified m andam us t o direct t he respondent s t o t reat t he appoint m ent of t he pet it ioner has subst ant ive and regular and declare t he t erm s used as contract ual in his appoint m ent order as sham and m isnom er along wit h all consequent ial benefit s and also t o rest rain t he respondent s to fill up t he post s occupied by t he pet it ioner by way of direct recruit m ent t ill t he disposal of t he writ pet it ion in view of t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case st at ed in body of t he writ pet it ion and furt her t o consider t he case of t he pet it ioner for absorpt ion as a regular em ployee, keeping in view t he fact s highlight ed in t he body of t he writ pet it ion and also to declare t he policy for given art ificial break at t he end of t he year and t hereaft er ext ension on t he basis of year t o year is unfair labour pract ice and t he sam e is t o be declare void aft er calling t he ent ire record from t he respondent s, along wit h it s effect and operat ion also.” ( pet it ioner I t is not in disput e t hat Mr. Raj esh 5. Chandra Pandey in WPSS No.3249 of 2018) was appoint ed as Prashikshan Mit ra dat ed 07.01.2011. According t o him , he has been serving Prashikshan Mit ra I .T.I ., Pines, Nainit al, t hus, he has ear ned a right t o be consider ed for regularizat ion w hich, how ever , has not been consider ed so far. in Gover nm ent cont inuously cont ract Lear ned counsel for t he pet it ioner has 6. placed r eliance upon a j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of “ Jaggo Vs. Union of I ndia & ot hers” , report ed in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, wher e Hon’ble following Supr em e Court has m ade obser vat ion in par agraph nos.25, 26 & 27: t he “ 2 5 . I t is a disconcert ing realit y t hat t em porary em ployees, part icularly in governm ent inst it ut ions, oft en face m ult ifacet ed form s of exploit at ion. While t he foundat ional purpose of t em porary cont ract s m ay have been t o address short - t erm or seasonal needs, t hey have increasingly becom e a m echanism t o evade long- term obligat ions owed to em ployees. These pract ices m anifest in several ways: • Misuse of “ Tem porary” Labels: Em ployees engaged for work t hat is essent ial, recurring, and int egral t o t he funct ioning of an inst it ut ion are oft en labeled as “ t em porary” or “ cont ract ual,” even when t heir roles m irror t hose of regular em ployees. Such m isclassificat ion deprives workers of t he dignit y, securit y, and t o, despit e benefit s perform ing ident ical t asks. regular em ployees are ent it led t hat • Arbit rary Term inat ion: Tem porary em ployees are frequent ly dism issed wit hout cause or not ice, as seen in t he present case. This pract ice underm ines t he principles of nat ural j ust ice and subj ect s workers t o a st at e of const ant insecurit y, regardless of t he qualit y or durat ion of t heir service. • Lack of Career Progression: Tem porary em ployees oft en t hem selves excluded from opport unit ies for skill developm ent , prom ot ions, or increm ent al pay raises. They rem ain st agnant in t heir roles, creat ing a syst em ic disparit y bet ween t hem and t heir regular count erpart s, despit e t heir cont ribut ions being equally significant . roles perform ed by • Using Out sourcing as a Shield: I nst it ut ions increasingly resort t o out sourcing t em porary em ployees, effect ively replacing one set of exploit ed workers wit h anot her. This pract ice not only perpet uat es exploit at ion but also dem onst rat es a deliberat e effort t o bypass t he obligat ion t o offer regular em ploym ent . • Denial of Basic Right s and Benefit s: Tem porary em ployees are oft en denied fundam ent al benefit s such as pension, provident fund, healt h insurance, and paid leave, even when t heir t enure spans decades. This lack of social securit y subj ect s t hem and t heir fam ilies t o undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, ret irem ent , or unforeseen circum st ances. 2 6 . While t he j udgm ent in Um a Devi ( supra) sought t o curt ail t he pract ice of backdoor ent ries and ensure appoint m ent s adhered t o const it ut ional principles, it is regret t able t hat it s principles are oft en m isint erpret ed or m isapplied t o deny legit im at e claim s of long- serving em ployees. This j udgm ent aim ed t o dist inguish bet ween “ illegal” and “ irregular” appoint m ent s. I t cat egorically held t hat em ployees irregular appoint m ent s, who were engaged in duly sanct ioned post s and had served cont inuously for m ore t han t en years, should be considered for regularizat ion as a one- t im e m easure. However, t he laudable int ent of t he j udgm ent is being subvert ed when inst it ut ions rely on it s dict a t o indiscrim inat ely rej ect t he claim s of em ployees, even in cases where t o t heir appoint m ent s are not t he procedural t o j udgm ent regularizat ion exist s t he j udgm ent 's explicit acknowledgm ent of cases where regularizat ion is appropriat e. This select ive applicat ion dist ort s t he j udgm ent 's spirit and purpose, effect ively weaponizing it against em ployees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. form alit ies. Governm ent depart m ent s oft en cit e t o argue tem porary em ployees, overlooking t hat no vest ed right in Um a Devi ( supra) illegal, but m erely lack adherence 2 7 . I n light of t hese considerat ions, in our opinion, it is im perat ive for governm ent depart m ent s t o lead by exam ple in providing fair and st able em ploym ent . Engaging workers on a t em porary basis for ext ended periods, especially when t heir roles are int egral to t he organizat ion's funct ioning, not only cont ravenes int ernat ional labour st andards but also exposes t he organizat ion t o legal challenges and underm ines em ployee m orale. By ensuring fair em ploym ent pract ices, governm ent inst it ut ions can reduce t he burden of unnecessary lit igat ion, prom ot e j ob securit y, and uphold t he principles of j ust ice and fairness t hat t hey are m eant t o em body. This approach aligns wit h int ernat ional st andards and set s a posit ive precedent for t he privat e sect or t o follow, t hereby cont ribut ing t o t he overall bet t erm ent of labour pract ices in t he count ry.” fram ed Rules Lear ned counsel t he pet it ioner 7. subm it s t hat Governm ent of Ut t arakhand regularizat ion of cont ract / ad- hoc/ daily em ployees, which w er e not ified, on 31.12.2013. The said Rules w er e challenged befor e t his Court in WPSB No.616 of 2018 and a Division Bench of t his Court vide j udgm ent dat ed 22.02.2024 passed t he following or der: “ 6 . I n t he present case, t here was an int erim order of st ay dat ed 04.12.2018, t hat no orders of regularizat ion will be passed by t he St at e Governm ent , under t he 2013 Rules. Hence, since 04.12.2018 no regularizat ion orders have been passed. All t hose persons, who have been regularized as per t he 2013 Rules before 04.12.2018, have worked for m ore t han 13-14 years now. Wit h respect t o ot her candidat es, who have t o be regularized now, t hey can be regularized, as per t he 2013 Rules, by t aking int o considerat ion 10 years’ service, inst ead of 05 years, as of now. 7 . Accordingly, t hat , aft er 04.12.2018, 10 years’ period will be t aken int o considerat ion for regularizat ion.” t he 2013 Rules are being m odified Lear ned counsel

8. t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat t he case of t he pet it ioner for regularizat ion t he aforesaid Rules, as ex plained by Division Bench in t he aforesaid j udgm ent . t hus cov er ed by Lear ned St at e Counsel also concedes 9. t hat Division Bench has m odified t he Rules t o som e ext ent , how ever , he subm it s t hat t he issue, as t o whet her t he case of t he t he pet it ioners would be covered by m odificat ion m ade by Division Bench, is t o be exam ined by t he Aut horit ies and he cannot m ake any st at em ent on t he said aspect . in m ore

10. Be t hat as it m ay, since pet it ioner s have put t han 10 y ears of cont inuous service as cont ract em ployee, t her efore, t he writ pet it ions are disposed of wit h a direct ion t o Direct or, Social Welfare t o const it ut e a Regularizat ion Com m it t ee t o exam ine t he claim of t he pet it ioners in t he light of Regularizat ion Rules of 2013, as m odified vide j udgm ent dat ed 22.02.2024. The ent ire ex er cise shall be com plet ed wit hin t he dat e of product ion of cert ified copy of t his or der . four m ont hs’ ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

12.02.2025 Arpan