Om Prakash Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation

Pastor (supra) was thereafter challenged in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 which was also upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c)No.11915 of 2022.

10. It is submitted that subsequently other similarly situated persons filed various writ petitions claiming the same benefits but were dismissed but Special Appeal No.56 of 2022 and 4 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 other connected special appeals were thereafter allowed by means of judgment and orders dated

03.04.2024 by Division Bench of this Court granting retrospective regularization to those appellants. The said judgments has thereafter been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) Diary No.25700 of 2024.

11. It is therefore submitted that the issue with regard to retrospective regularization and grant of pensionary benefits having already been decided by two Division Benches of this Court as upheld by Supreme Court, benefit of same is liable to accrue to petitioner as well.

12. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner was not appointed against any post by any competent authority and was in fact appointed only on a fixed salary of Rs.1,600/- per month and therefore the initial appointment itself was de hors the Service Rules. It is also submitted that there is no statutory provision for retrospective regularization person appointed on consolidated pay. He has also adverted to the Government Order dated 31.3.2021 and

6.10.2022 wherein it has been provided that regularization with retrospective effect would stand cancelled. It is also submitted that benefit of judgment rendered in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) would be unavailable to petitioner since the question of law was left open by Supreme Court. It is also submitted that similarly situated person, Shailendra Pratap Singh, also filed Writ Petition No.5685 of 2022 which was allowed but Special Appeal Defective No.677 of 2023 5 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 challenging the same is yet pending consideration. It is therefore submitted that once regularization has been effected from a particular date, no retrospectivity can be granted to petitioner.

13. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated here-in-above are admitted. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner's case was subsequently considered for regularization in terms of directions issued by Tribunal and he was regularized in service vide dated 24.02.2016. It is also admitted that ever since the initial engagement of petitioner in service since the year 1990 on the post of Junior Engineer with the department, he has continued as such ever since, particularly in pursuance of interim protection granted on 06.07.1993.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as the fact that petitioner stood regularized in service on 24.02.2016, the aspect of retrospectivity being granted regularization requires adjudication.

15. It is evident from record that in similar circumstances, one Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) had filed writ A No. 3660 of 2021 which was allowed in terms of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra). Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 there against has considered all the relevant aspects in the following manner: "29. In the facts of the present case, we neither engagement respondent/petitioner was in a work charge establishment, nor is it admitted anywhere 6 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 engagement/appointment respondent/petitioner was in accordance with the service rules. The specific case of the respondent in para 11 of the counter affidavit appointment respondent/petitioner was not made by the competent authority. There is no discussion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge appointment respondent/petitioner to be in accordance with the service rules prescribed for the post. We, therefore, find force in the contention of Mr. Pandey that learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Prem Singh (supra) and Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra), particularly retrospective amendment provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.

34. Law with regard to regularization is well settled. The purpose of regularization as also the exigency in which such benefit can be granted has been extensively considered Supreme Court Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. It has been held that such benefit can be granted only in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose.

35. The appointment on the post of Junior Engineer under the recruitment rules is to be made through the U.P. Public Service Commission. The initial engagement of the respondent/petitioner was not through the 7 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Commission and the manner of initial recruitment of respondent/petitioner has neither been specifically pleaded in the writ nor has been adverted to by the respondents. It has, however, been stated in para 11 of the counter affidavit that initial engagement of respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with the service rules. This plea has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. The initial engagement of respondent/petitioner w.e.f.

1.1.1989 was on daily wage basis and he was sanctioned regular scale of pay by the competent authority

3.9.1997, compliance of the orders passed in writ petition no. 1436 (SS) of 1997 and he was posted as Junior Engineer against the vacant post vide order dated 18.9.1997. His continuance thereafter till attaining the age of superannuation remains undisputed.

37. From a perusal of the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018, passed by competent authority, remains undisputed that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to be regularized in accordance with the provisions of the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. It has to be seen in the facts of the case, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from any date prior to 31.12.2018 for which specific prayer is made in the writ petition?

41. Rules for regularization were framed in respect of adhoc appointments on the posts falling with the purview of Public Service 8 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Commission in 1979. These rules were amended from time to time and the respondent petitioner has relied upon the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. The cut off date was amended and substituted by these rules. Amended rule 2 notified on

20.12.2001 provided that any person directly appointed on adhoc basis on or before

30.6.1998 possessed requisite qualification at the time of appointment and had completed three years service and was working on 20.12.2001 would be entitled to be considered for regular appointment against permanent or temporary vacancy on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules.

42. The respondent/petitioner regularization under the notification dated 20.12.2001 was covered is neither in doubt nor is disputed in view of the order dated 31.12.2018 since his initial engagement on adhoc basis was from a date prior to 30.6.1998; he was working

20.12.2001; possessed requisite qualification regular appointment at the time of initial adhoc appointment and had completed three years continuous service.

43. The notification dated 20.12.2001 was expected to be given effect to with immediate effect and the consideration of regularization respondent/petitioner ought not to have been 9 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 deferred for so long particularly in view of the express provision contained in the rule itself. Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by the rule framing authority for such consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:- "2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders."

44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority conscious consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to 10 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim.

45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter affidavit justify belated consideration regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant explain consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected.

46. The regularization rules notified on

20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission which included the department of minor irrigation as well and there existed no specific need of any further Administrative/Government order to be issued for the rules of regularization to be given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer in the Department of Minor Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the 11 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the direction contained in the government order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and at best reminded the authorities to act as per the notification dated 20.12.2001. Services of various other persons such as Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done in compliance of the court's order does not inspire confidence as the direction of court existed in favour of respondent/petitioner to be considered for regularization from 1997 itself. The authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in the matter of consideration of case for regularization under the orders of court. The authorities of the State, therefore, are not justified in denying consideration to the case of respondent appellant for regularization soon issuance notification

20.12.2001 and in any view before making any regular appointment in accordance with the relevant service rules by virtue of amended rule 2 (iii).

47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the action of appellant authorities in not considering petitioner's regularization within a reasonable period despite an order of the competent court cannot be approved.

48. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondent/petitioner regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of 12 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are payable respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs."

16. It is thus evident that aforesaid aspect has been considered in light of judgments rendered in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu Pratap Pandey (supra). The said judgment was not interfered with in Special Leave to Appeal No.11915 of 2022. However, the question of law was kept open.

17. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamrul Haq and others versus 13 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022 and other connected matters has also adjudicated upon the aspect in the following manner: "26. At the outset, it may be noticed that it is not disputed by the parties that the engagement of the present appellants was not on ad hoc basis. It is also not disputed between the parties that similarly situate Junior Engineers working in the PWD as well as in other Government Departments including Minor Irrigation, were similarly placed and there have been repeated orders passed by the Court from time to time in their respective cases wherein the issue of regularization was considered and directions were issued to the State to consider and pass appropriate order relating to such Junior Engineers.

27. It is also not disputed that the issue raised by the present appellants was also the subject matter of Writ-A No.3660 of 2021 (Raj Bahadur Pastor Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 as well as in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Appeal No.97 of 2021 decided on 09.06.2021 a learned Single Judge held that the services rendered by the said petitioners prior to his regularization was also to be taken into account for determining the period of qualifying service for the purposes of payment of pensionary and other benefits. This decision in Raj 14 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Bahadur Pastor dated 09.06.2021 was made the the subject matter of Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench by means of its judgment dated 27.01.2022 held that even though the petitioner of the said case came to be regularized later but the Division Bench held that the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended and the date of regularization was taken to be 20.12.2021 i.e. the date when the 3rd amendment in the regularization rules came into effect. A copy of the judgment in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 has been brought on record as annexure no.18 with the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the application for interim relief.

28. In so far as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the decision of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) is not applicable to the present appellants, nor they can be given the benefit thereof, for the reason that the appellants herein were not appointed on ad hoc basis is fallacious reason regularization dated 06.09.2006 which has been brought on record as annexure no.16, clearly indicates that a conscious decision was taken by the department extending the benefit of the Rules of 1979 and treating the appellants to be on ad hoc basis, which reads as under:- लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में कायर्रत िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की िरट यािचका सं० 36603/1998 राके श कु मार 15 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 ि्ऴपाठी व अन्य बनाम उ०्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िदनांक़ 30.11.04 यािचका सं० 6737/1999 हृदय नाथ चौबे एवं 107 अन्य बनाम उ०्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िद०07.03.2005 तथा िरट यािचका सं० 37582/98, राम िसह व 17 अन्य, बनाम उ० ्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िद० 25.04.2005 को सं्ञान में लेते हुए शासनादेश सं०-877/23-7-06-. 198 (कोटर्)/06 िदनांक 17 फरवरी 2006 ्षारा लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में कायर्रत दैिनक वेतन व वकर् चाजर् के 197 कमर्चािरयों के िविनयिमतीकरण की कायर्वाही उ० ्ऺ० (लोक सेवा आयोग के ्षे्ऴान्तगर्त पद पर) तदथर् िनयुि्वयों का िविनयिमतीकरण िनयमावली 1979, यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली 2001 के िनयम-4 के अन्तगर्त तदथर् ्वािमक मानते हुए उ्व िनयमावली में िनिहत ्ऺािवधानों के अनुसार कायर्वाही िकये जाने का अनुमोदन जारी िकया गया है। शासनादेश िद 17.02.06 में िनिहत िनदरॏशानुसार चयन सिमित का गठन कायार्लय ्ञाप सं०- 1967 ईडी/5319 ईडी/06 िद०

07.03.06 के ्षारा िकया गया है। सिमित ्षारा ्षे्ऴीय अिधकािरयों से िवभागों में कायर्रत िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों के सेवा िववरण एवं अन्य मूल ्ऺमाणप्ऴ ्ऺाप्त िकये गये थे। सिमित की संस्तुित के आधार पर उपरो्व िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/ वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की ज्ये्षता सूची जारी की गयी है। सिमित की संस्तुितयों को स्वीकार करते हुए लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में िवचाराधीन िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् किमयों को अवर अिभयन्ता (यॉि्ऴक) के पद पर वेतनमान रू० 5000-150-8000 पर िविनयिमतीकरण िकये जाने के आदेशं िनम्न शतर् एवं ्ऺितबन्धों के अनुरूप एतद्षारा जारी िकये जाते हैं।"

30. Thus, it would be seen that the appellants herein were granted the benefit and were treated as ad hoc employees as the same is mentioned in the order of regularization itself. Accordingly, once the appellants regularized 16 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees and in any case in view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier petition which was filed by the Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others wherein directions have been issued by the Court which were never set aside, hence it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the same at the earliest and even though the regularization was made in the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the Rules 1979.

31. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that in the regularization order, the relevant part of which has been reproduced hereinabove it did treat the appellants as ad hoc employees, hence there can be no reason for this Court to differ or to take a different view other than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra), Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which admittedly has been affirmed by the Apex Court.

32. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions and this Court is of the view that the appellants though regularized in the year 2006, their regularization order dated 06.09.2006 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be 17 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized with effect from 20.12.2001 and thereafter the Authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which the regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001 since the benefit of regularization will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The State Authorities shall also extend all service and retiral benefits which are found due and payable to the appellants and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.

33. With the aforesaid observations, the instant special appeals are partly allowed. Costs are made easy."

18. The said judgment has thereafter been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No.25700 of 2024.

19. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that the aspect of retrospective regularization to be granted has already been adjudicated upon by two Division Benches which have been upheld uptill the Supreme Court.

20. In such circumstances, the mere pendency of other special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, in the considered opinion of this court, would be immaterial.

21. The said aspect has also been considered subsequently by Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo versus Union of India reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826 in the following manner:- 18 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 "10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, appellants' uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part- time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for 19 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without notice explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment 20 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop sanctioned functions a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and continued service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a 21 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring importance considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case."

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of 22 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 temporary contracts may have been to address short-term seasonal needs, increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, integral functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees 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: 23 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Institutions increasingly resort outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort bypass 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 24 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking 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 integral 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."

22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid enunciation of law is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly since this Court is bound by Division Bench judgments which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. 25 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

23. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 30.4.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to amend the regularization order of petitioner to give it effect in accordance with directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra). Appropriate orders shall be issued by the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority and consequential benefits shall be accorded to petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

24. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pastor (supra) was thereafter challenged in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 which was also upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c)No.11915 of 2022.

10. It is submitted that subsequently other similarly situated persons filed various writ petitions claiming the same benefits but were dismissed but Special Appeal No.56 of 2022 and 4 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 other connected special appeals were thereafter allowed by means of judgment and orders dated

03.04.2024 by Division Bench of this Court granting retrospective regularization to those appellants. The said judgments has thereafter been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) Diary No.25700 of 2024.

11. It is therefore submitted that the issue with regard to retrospective regularization and grant of pensionary benefits having already been decided by two Division Benches of this Court as upheld by Supreme Court, benefit of same is liable to accrue to petitioner as well.

12. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner was not appointed against any post by any competent authority and was in fact appointed only on a fixed salary of Rs.1,600/- per month and therefore the initial appointment itself was de hors the Service Rules. It is also submitted that there is no statutory provision for retrospective regularization person appointed on consolidated pay. He has also adverted to the Government Order dated 31.3.2021 and

6.10.2022 wherein it has been provided that regularization with retrospective effect would stand cancelled. It is also submitted that benefit of judgment rendered in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) would be unavailable to petitioner since the question of law was left open by Supreme Court. It is also submitted that similarly situated person, Shailendra Pratap Singh, also filed Writ Petition No.5685 of 2022 which was allowed but Special Appeal Defective No.677 of 2023 5 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 challenging the same is yet pending consideration. It is therefore submitted that once regularization has been effected from a particular date, no retrospectivity can be granted to petitioner.

13. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated here-in-above are admitted. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner's case was subsequently considered for regularization in terms of directions issued by Tribunal and he was regularized in service vide dated 24.02.2016. It is also admitted that ever since the initial engagement of petitioner in service since the year 1990 on the post of Junior Engineer with the department, he has continued as such ever since, particularly in pursuance of interim protection granted on 06.07.1993.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as the fact that petitioner stood regularized in service on 24.02.2016, the aspect of retrospectivity being granted regularization requires adjudication.

15. It is evident from record that in similar circumstances, one Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) had filed writ A No. 3660 of 2021 which was allowed in terms of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra). Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 there against has considered all the relevant aspects in the following manner: "29. In the facts of the present case, we neither engagement respondent/petitioner was in a work charge establishment, nor is it admitted anywhere 6 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 engagement/appointment respondent/petitioner was in accordance with the service rules. The specific case of the respondent in para 11 of the counter affidavit appointment respondent/petitioner was not made by the competent authority. There is no discussion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge appointment respondent/petitioner to be in accordance with the service rules prescribed for the post. We, therefore, find force in the contention of Mr. Pandey that learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Prem Singh (supra) and Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra), particularly retrospective amendment provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.

34. Law with regard to regularization is well settled. The purpose of regularization as also the exigency in which such benefit can be granted has been extensively considered Supreme Court Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. It has been held that such benefit can be granted only in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose.

35. The appointment on the post of Junior Engineer under the recruitment rules is to be made through the U.P. Public Service Commission. The initial engagement of the respondent/petitioner was not through the 7 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Commission and the manner of initial recruitment of respondent/petitioner has neither been specifically pleaded in the writ nor has been adverted to by the respondents. It has, however, been stated in para 11 of the counter affidavit that initial engagement of respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with the service rules. This plea has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. The initial engagement of respondent/petitioner w.e.f.

1.1.1989 was on daily wage basis and he was sanctioned regular scale of pay by the competent authority

3.9.1997, compliance of the orders passed in writ petition no. 1436 (SS) of 1997 and he was posted as Junior Engineer against the vacant post vide order dated 18.9.1997. His continuance thereafter till attaining the age of superannuation remains undisputed.

37. From a perusal of the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018, passed by competent authority, remains undisputed that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to be regularized in accordance with the provisions of the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. It has to be seen in the facts of the case, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from any date prior to 31.12.2018 for which specific prayer is made in the writ petition?

41. Rules for regularization were framed in respect of adhoc appointments on the posts falling with the purview of Public Service 8 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Commission in 1979. These rules were amended from time to time and the respondent petitioner has relied upon the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. The cut off date was amended and substituted by these rules. Amended rule 2 notified on

20.12.2001 provided that any person directly appointed on adhoc basis on or before

30.6.1998 possessed requisite qualification at the time of appointment and had completed three years service and was working on 20.12.2001 would be entitled to be considered for regular appointment against permanent or temporary vacancy on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules.

42. The respondent/petitioner regularization under the notification dated 20.12.2001 was covered is neither in doubt nor is disputed in view of the order dated 31.12.2018 since his initial engagement on adhoc basis was from a date prior to 30.6.1998; he was working

20.12.2001; possessed requisite qualification regular appointment at the time of initial adhoc appointment and had completed three years continuous service.

43. The notification dated 20.12.2001 was expected to be given effect to with immediate effect and the consideration of regularization respondent/petitioner ought not to have been 9 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 deferred for so long particularly in view of the express provision contained in the rule itself. Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by the rule framing authority for such consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:- "2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders."

44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority conscious consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to 10 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim.

45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter affidavit justify belated consideration regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant explain consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected.

46. The regularization rules notified on

20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission which included the department of minor irrigation as well and there existed no specific need of any further Administrative/Government order to be issued for the rules of regularization to be given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer in the Department of Minor Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the 11 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the direction contained in the government order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and at best reminded the authorities to act as per the notification dated 20.12.2001. Services of various other persons such as Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done in compliance of the court's order does not inspire confidence as the direction of court existed in favour of respondent/petitioner to be considered for regularization from 1997 itself. The authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in the matter of consideration of case for regularization under the orders of court. The authorities of the State, therefore, are not justified in denying consideration to the case of respondent appellant for regularization soon issuance notification

20.12.2001 and in any view before making any regular appointment in accordance with the relevant service rules by virtue of amended rule 2 (iii).

47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the action of appellant authorities in not considering petitioner's regularization within a reasonable period despite an order of the competent court cannot be approved.

48. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondent/petitioner regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of 12 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are payable respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs."

16. It is thus evident that aforesaid aspect has been considered in light of judgments rendered in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu Pratap Pandey (supra). The said judgment was not interfered with in Special Leave to Appeal No.11915 of 2022. However, the question of law was kept open.

17. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamrul Haq and others versus 13 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022 and other connected matters has also adjudicated upon the aspect in the following manner: "26. At the outset, it may be noticed that it is not disputed by the parties that the engagement of the present appellants was not on ad hoc basis. It is also not disputed between the parties that similarly situate Junior Engineers working in the PWD as well as in other Government Departments including Minor Irrigation, were similarly placed and there have been repeated orders passed by the Court from time to time in their respective cases wherein the issue of regularization was considered and directions were issued to the State to consider and pass appropriate order relating to such Junior Engineers.

27. It is also not disputed that the issue raised by the present appellants was also the subject matter of Writ-A No.3660 of 2021 (Raj Bahadur Pastor Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 as well as in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Appeal No.97 of 2021 decided on 09.06.2021 a learned Single Judge held that the services rendered by the said petitioners prior to his regularization was also to be taken into account for determining the period of qualifying service for the purposes of payment of pensionary and other benefits. This decision in Raj 14 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Bahadur Pastor dated 09.06.2021 was made the the subject matter of Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench by means of its judgment dated 27.01.2022 held that even though the petitioner of the said case came to be regularized later but the Division Bench held that the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended and the date of regularization was taken to be 20.12.2021 i.e. the date when the 3rd amendment in the regularization rules came into effect. A copy of the judgment in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 has been brought on record as annexure no.18 with the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the application for interim relief.

28. In so far as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the decision of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) is not applicable to the present appellants, nor they can be given the benefit thereof, for the reason that the appellants herein were not appointed on ad hoc basis is fallacious reason regularization dated 06.09.2006 which has been brought on record as annexure no.16, clearly indicates that a conscious decision was taken by the department extending the benefit of the Rules of 1979 and treating the appellants to be on ad hoc basis, which reads as under:- लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में कायर्रत िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की िरट यािचका सं० 36603/1998 राके श कु मार 15 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 ि्ऴपाठी व अन्य बनाम उ०्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िदनांक़ 30.11.04 यािचका सं० 6737/1999 हृदय नाथ चौबे एवं 107 अन्य बनाम उ०्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िद०07.03.2005 तथा िरट यािचका सं० 37582/98, राम िसह व 17 अन्य, बनाम उ० ्ऺ० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िद० 25.04.2005 को सं्ञान में लेते हुए शासनादेश सं०-877/23-7-06-. 198 (कोटर्)/06 िदनांक 17 फरवरी 2006 ्षारा लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में कायर्रत दैिनक वेतन व वकर् चाजर् के 197 कमर्चािरयों के िविनयिमतीकरण की कायर्वाही उ० ्ऺ० (लोक सेवा आयोग के ्षे्ऴान्तगर्त पद पर) तदथर् िनयुि्वयों का िविनयिमतीकरण िनयमावली 1979, यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली 2001 के िनयम-4 के अन्तगर्त तदथर् ्वािमक मानते हुए उ्व िनयमावली में िनिहत ्ऺािवधानों के अनुसार कायर्वाही िकये जाने का अनुमोदन जारी िकया गया है। शासनादेश िद 17.02.06 में िनिहत िनदरॏशानुसार चयन सिमित का गठन कायार्लय ्ञाप सं०- 1967 ईडी/5319 ईडी/06 िद०

07.03.06 के ्षारा िकया गया है। सिमित ्षारा ्षे्ऴीय अिधकािरयों से िवभागों में कायर्रत िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों के सेवा िववरण एवं अन्य मूल ्ऺमाणप्ऴ ्ऺाप्त िकये गये थे। सिमित की संस्तुित के आधार पर उपरो्व िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/ वकर् चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की ज्ये्षता सूची जारी की गयी है। सिमित की संस्तुितयों को स्वीकार करते हुए लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में िवचाराधीन िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर् चाजर् किमयों को अवर अिभयन्ता (यॉि्ऴक) के पद पर वेतनमान रू० 5000-150-8000 पर िविनयिमतीकरण िकये जाने के आदेशं िनम्न शतर् एवं ्ऺितबन्धों के अनुरूप एतद्षारा जारी िकये जाते हैं।"

30. Thus, it would be seen that the appellants herein were granted the benefit and were treated as ad hoc employees as the same is mentioned in the order of regularization itself. Accordingly, once the appellants regularized 16 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees and in any case in view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier petition which was filed by the Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others wherein directions have been issued by the Court which were never set aside, hence it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the same at the earliest and even though the regularization was made in the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the Rules 1979.

31. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that in the regularization order, the relevant part of which has been reproduced hereinabove it did treat the appellants as ad hoc employees, hence there can be no reason for this Court to differ or to take a different view other than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra), Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which admittedly has been affirmed by the Apex Court.

32. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions and this Court is of the view that the appellants though regularized in the year 2006, their regularization order dated 06.09.2006 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be 17 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized with effect from 20.12.2001 and thereafter the Authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which the regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001 since the benefit of regularization will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The State Authorities shall also extend all service and retiral benefits which are found due and payable to the appellants and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.

33. With the aforesaid observations, the instant special appeals are partly allowed. Costs are made easy."

18. The said judgment has thereafter been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No.25700 of 2024.

19. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that the aspect of retrospective regularization to be granted has already been adjudicated upon by two Division Benches which have been upheld uptill the Supreme Court.

20. In such circumstances, the mere pendency of other special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, in the considered opinion of this court, would be immaterial.

21. The said aspect has also been considered subsequently by Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo versus Union of India reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826 in the following manner:- 18 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 "10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, appellants' uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part- time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for 19 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without notice explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment 20 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop sanctioned functions a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and continued service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a 21 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring importance considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case."

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of 22 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 temporary contracts may have been to address short-term seasonal needs, increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, integral functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees 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: 23 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 Institutions increasingly resort outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort bypass 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 24 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025 departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking 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 integral 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."

22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid enunciation of law is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly since this Court is bound by Division Bench judgments which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. 25 WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

23. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 30.4.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to amend the regularization order of petitioner to give it effect in accordance with directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra). Appropriate orders shall be issued by the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority and consequential benefits shall be accorded to petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

24. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench