The Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others reported at MANU/SC/

there is no dispute about existence of sanctioned post.

6. The Regularization Rules have been made applicable to the employees of Nagar Palika Parishad by means of Government Order dated 03.01.2017. The said Government Order is extracted herein under:- " महत्वपपूरर / समयबद ससंख्यय - 3412-/ 9-1-16-119 सय /14 पቚኔषक, शቦኍपकयश सससंह, सचचिव उ० प० शयसन। सቚኔवय मम, चनदቚኔशक, स्थयनቦኍय चनकयय, उ०प० लखनऊ। नगर चवकयस अननु०-1 लखनऊऊः चदनयसंक 3 जनवरቦኍ, 2017 चवषयऊः- स्थयनቦኍय चनकययय/ जल ससंस्थयनोሪ मቚኔ चदनयसंक 31 चदसम्बर, 2001 तक चनयनु्ሹ / कययररत ददैचनक वቚኔतन/ वकर चियजर एवसं ससंचवदय कቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर कቚኔ ससंबसंध मम। महयदय, उपयनु र्ሹ चवषय कቚኔ ससंबसंध चव्ቈ ( वቚኔतन आययग) अननुभयग-2 कቚኔ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय - 44/2015/वቚኔ०आ०-2-795/ दस-54(एम) 2008 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 13.08.2015 एवसं उ्ሹ ्ቅम मम जयरቦኍ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय -9/2016/वቚኔ०आ०-2-201/दस-2016-8(मनु०स०स०)/2011 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 24.02.2016 दयरय पदቚኔश कቚኔ रयजककीय चवभयगोሪ स्वशयसቦኍ ससंस्थयओसं , सयवरजचनक उप्ቅमोሪ/ चनगमोሪ, स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ चवकयस पयसधकररोሪ एवसं सजलय पसंचिययतोሪ मम चदनयसंक 31 चदसम्बर 2001 तक चनयनु्ሹ ददैचनक वቚኔतन / वकर चियजर एवसं ससंचवदय कቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर कቚኔ ससंबसंध मम आदቚኔश चनगरत चकयय गयय हदै तथय कयचमरक अननुभयग -2 कቚኔ असधसपूचिनय ससंख्यय -9/2016 /2/1/97-क/2016 चदनयसंक 12.09.2016 दयरय उ्ቈर पदቚኔश ( उ्ቈर पदቚኔश लयक सቚኔवय आययग कቚኔ कቚኔ्ቔ कቚኔ बयहर ) समपूह 'ग' और समपूह 'घ' कቚኔ पदोሪ पर सरकयरቦኍ चवभयग मम ददैचनक मजदपूरቦኍ यय कययर पभयर यय ससंचवदय पर कययर कर रहቚኔ व्यच्ሹयोሪ ककी चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर चनयमयवलቦኍ, 2016 चनगरत चकयय गयय हदै।

3. इस ससंबसंध मम मनुझቚኔ यह कहनቚኔ कय चनदቚኔश हहआ हदै चक चव्ቈ (वቚኔतन आययग) अननुभयग-2 कቚኔ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय-44/2015/वቚኔ०आ०-2-795/दस-54(एम) 2008 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक

13.08.2015 एवसं शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय-9/2016/वቚኔ०आ०-2-201/दस-2016-8 (मनु०स०स०) / 2011 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 24.02.2016 स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ पर भቦኍ पभयवቦኍ हदै। इस शቚኔरቦኍ कቚኔ अन्तगरत आनቚኔ वयलቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर हቚኔतनु कयचमरक अननुभयग -2 कቚኔ असधसपूचिनय चदनयसंक 12.09.2016 दयरय उ्ቈर पदቚኔश (उ्ቈर पदቚኔश लयक सቚኔवय आययग कቚኔ कቚኔ्ቔ कቚኔ बयहर ) समपूह 'ग' और समपूह 'घ' कቚኔ पदोሪ पर सरकयरቦኍ चवभयग मम ददैचनक मजदपूरቦኍ यय कययर पभयर यय ससंचवदय पर कययर कर रहቚኔ व्यच्ሹयोሪ ककी चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर चनयमयवलቦኍ , 2016 ककी व्यवस्थय कय स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ / जलससंस्थयन कቚኔ कयचमरक पर अननुमन्य चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ हቚኔतनु इस शतर कቚኔ अधቦኍन असंगቦኍकक त चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ पर रयज्यपयल महयदय सहषर स्वቦኍकक चत पदयन करतቚኔ हदै चक उपयनु र्ሹ व्यवस्थय लयगपू चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ कቚኔ फलस्वरूप बढቚኔ हहए व्ययभयर कय वहन ससंबसंसधत चनकयय दयरय चकयय जययቚኔगय। इस हቚኔतनु रयज्य सरकयर सቚኔ कयई चव्ቈቦኍय सहययतय नहቦኍ दቦኍ जययቚኔगቦኍ। यह आदቚኔश चव्ቈ चवभयग कቚኔ अशयसककीय ससंख्यय -ई-8-14/ दस-2017, चदनयक- 02 जनवरቦኍ, 2017 मम पय्቎ उनककी सहमचत सቚኔ चनगरत चकयቚኔ जय रहቚኔ हदै। भवदቦኍय ह० अप० 03/01/2017 ( शቦኍपकयश सससंह) सचचिव "

7. As seen earlier from the exchange of pleadings, these facts are established.

8. The petitioner has been working continuously as a daily wage electrician without break, and since the date of his appointment i.e. on 23.01.2001. The petitioner was thus appointed prior to the cut off date for regularization. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Regularization Rules.

9. The agency of the contractor was introduced by the respondents in December 2014. Till that point in time from the date 23.01.2001, the petitioner was being directly engaged as a daily wager by the respondents. It is evident from a perusal of the counter affidavit and the records that the agency has been brought into existence only to defeat the rights of regularization of the petitioner in the instant case. No policy objectives which would justify the engagement of the petitioner through a contractor after 13 years of service has been stated in the counter affidavit.

10. Moreover under the Regularization Rules are also applicable to employees engaged on contract.

11. The reasons cited in the impugned order for denying the petitioner's right for regularization is arbitrary and an instance of exploitative practice adopted by the employer to deny the just dues to a grade-D employee.

12. The Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs Union of India and others reported at MANU/SC/1403/2024 noticed the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent beneficial provisions created by law for the employees. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder: "24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation4 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

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 labeled 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. • 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.

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 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."

13. The case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the holding of the Supreme Court.

14. The impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Zamania, District Ghazipur is hereby quashed.

15. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders directing regularisation of the petitioner as per the seniority list of Group-D post who have been engaged on daily wages/contract basis.

16. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Jaswant JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

there is no dispute about existence of sanctioned post.

6. The Regularization Rules have been made applicable to the employees of Nagar Palika Parishad by means of Government Order dated 03.01.2017. The said Government Order is extracted herein under:- " महत्वपपूरर / समयबद ससंख्यय - 3412-/ 9-1-16-119 सय /14 पቚኔषक, शቦኍपकयश सससंह, सचचिव उ० प० शयसन। सቚኔवय मम, चनदቚኔशक, स्थयनቦኍय चनकयय, उ०प० लखनऊ। नगर चवकयस अननु०-1 लखनऊऊः चदनयसंक 3 जनवरቦኍ, 2017 चवषयऊः- स्थयनቦኍय चनकययय/ जल ससंस्थयनोሪ मቚኔ चदनयसंक 31 चदसम्बर, 2001 तक चनयनु्ሹ / कययररत ददैचनक वቚኔतन/ वकर चियजर एवसं ससंचवदय कቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर कቚኔ ससंबसंध मम। महयदय, उपयनु र्ሹ चवषय कቚኔ ससंबसंध चव्ቈ ( वቚኔतन आययग) अननुभयग-2 कቚኔ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय - 44/2015/वቚኔ०आ०-2-795/ दस-54(एम) 2008 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 13.08.2015 एवसं उ्ሹ ्ቅम मम जयरቦኍ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय -9/2016/वቚኔ०आ०-2-201/दस-2016-8(मनु०स०स०)/2011 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 24.02.2016 दयरय पदቚኔश कቚኔ रयजककीय चवभयगोሪ स्वशयसቦኍ ससंस्थयओसं , सयवरजचनक उप्ቅमोሪ/ चनगमोሪ, स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ चवकयस पयसधकररोሪ एवसं सजलय पसंचिययतोሪ मम चदनयसंक 31 चदसम्बर 2001 तक चनयनु्ሹ ददैचनक वቚኔतन / वकर चियजर एवसं ससंचवदय कቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर कቚኔ ससंबसंध मम आदቚኔश चनगरत चकयय गयय हदै तथय कयचमरक अननुभयग -2 कቚኔ असधसपूचिनय ससंख्यय -9/2016 /2/1/97-क/2016 चदनयसंक 12.09.2016 दयरय उ्ቈर पदቚኔश ( उ्ቈर पदቚኔश लयक सቚኔवय आययग कቚኔ कቚኔ्ቔ कቚኔ बयहर ) समपूह 'ग' और समपूह 'घ' कቚኔ पदोሪ पर सरकयरቦኍ चवभयग मम ददैचनक मजदपूरቦኍ यय कययर पभयर यय ससंचवदय पर कययर कर रहቚኔ व्यच्ሹयोሪ ककी चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर चनयमयवलቦኍ, 2016 चनगरत चकयय गयय हदै।

3. इस ससंबसंध मम मनुझቚኔ यह कहनቚኔ कय चनदቚኔश हहआ हदै चक चव्ቈ (वቚኔतन आययग) अननुभयग-2 कቚኔ शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय-44/2015/वቚኔ०आ०-2-795/दस-54(एम) 2008 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक

13.08.2015 एवसं शयसनयदቚኔश ससंख्यय-9/2016/वቚኔ०आ०-2-201/दस-2016-8 (मनु०स०स०) / 2011 टቦኍ०सቦኍ० चदनयसंक 24.02.2016 स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ पर भቦኍ पभयवቦኍ हदै। इस शቚኔरቦኍ कቚኔ अन्तगरत आनቚኔ वयलቚኔ कयचमरकोሪ कቚኔ चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर हቚኔतनु कयचमरक अननुभयग -2 कቚኔ असधसपूचिनय चदनयसंक 12.09.2016 दयरय उ्ቈर पदቚኔश (उ्ቈर पदቚኔश लयक सቚኔवय आययग कቚኔ कቚኔ्ቔ कቚኔ बयहर ) समपूह 'ग' और समपूह 'घ' कቚኔ पदोሪ पर सरकयरቦኍ चवभयग मम ददैचनक मजदपूरቦኍ यय कययर पभयर यय ससंचवदय पर कययर कर रहቚኔ व्यच्ሹयोሪ ककी चवचनयचमतቦኍकरर चनयमयवलቦኍ , 2016 ककी व्यवस्थय कय स्थयनቦኍय चनकययोሪ / जलससंस्थयन कቚኔ कयचमरक पर अननुमन्य चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ हቚኔतनु इस शतर कቚኔ अधቦኍन असंगቦኍकक त चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ पर रयज्यपयल महयदय सहषर स्वቦኍकक चत पदयन करतቚኔ हदै चक उपयनु र्ሹ व्यवस्थय लयगपू चकयቚኔ जयनቚኔ कቚኔ फलस्वरूप बढቚኔ हहए व्ययभयर कय वहन ससंबसंसधत चनकयय दयरय चकयय जययቚኔगय। इस हቚኔतनु रयज्य सरकयर सቚኔ कयई चव्ቈቦኍय सहययतय नहቦኍ दቦኍ जययቚኔगቦኍ। यह आदቚኔश चव्ቈ चवभयग कቚኔ अशयसककीय ससंख्यय -ई-8-14/ दस-2017, चदनयक- 02 जनवरቦኍ, 2017 मम पय्቎ उनककी सहमचत सቚኔ चनगरत चकयቚኔ जय रहቚኔ हदै। भवदቦኍय ह० अप० 03/01/2017 ( शቦኍपकयश सससंह) सचचिव "

7. As seen earlier from the exchange of pleadings, these facts are established.

8. The petitioner has been working continuously as a daily wage electrician without break, and since the date of his appointment i.e. on 23.01.2001. The petitioner was thus appointed prior to the cut off date for regularization. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Regularization Rules.

9. The agency of the contractor was introduced by the respondents in December 2014. Till that point in time from the date 23.01.2001, the petitioner was being directly engaged as a daily wager by the respondents. It is evident from a perusal of the counter affidavit and the records that the agency has been brought into existence only to defeat the rights of regularization of the petitioner in the instant case. No policy objectives which would justify the engagement of the petitioner through a contractor after 13 years of service has been stated in the counter affidavit.

10. Moreover under the Regularization Rules are also applicable to employees engaged on contract.

11. The reasons cited in the impugned order for denying the petitioner's right for regularization is arbitrary and an instance of exploitative practice adopted by the employer to deny the just dues to a grade-D employee.

12. The Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs Union of India and others reported at MANU/SC/1403/2024 noticed the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent beneficial provisions created by law for the employees. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder: "24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation4 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

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 labeled 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. • 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.

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 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."

13. The case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the holding of the Supreme Court.

14. The impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Zamania, District Ghazipur is hereby quashed.

15. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders directing regularisation of the petitioner as per the seniority list of Group-D post who have been engaged on daily wages/contract basis.

16. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Jaswant JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad