Karnataka High Court
Pandurangappa J vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2026
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 14484 OF 2026 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANGAPPA J
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O JAYANNA,
WORKING AS HISTORY LECTURER
AT BBMP PU COLLEGE FOR GIRLS CLEVELAND TOWN,
BANGALORE, R/AT DURGAVARA VILLAGE AND POST,
CHALLAKERE,
CHITRADURGA 577537.
2. RAJU C H,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O HAYAMAIAH,
Digitally WORKING AS SOCIAL TEACHER AT BBMP GIRLS
signed by HIGH SCHOOL
SHILPABAI S BAIRAVESHWARA NAGARA,
Location: R/AT NO 47, 2ND CROSS,
HIGH MANJUNATHA LAYOUT,
COURT OF
MACHOHALLI,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560091.
3. PALAIAH.P,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O PALAIAH,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
AT BBMP GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
KASTUBA NAGARA, R/AT NO.104,
SADASHIVA BUILDING, SHATHIPURA,
SARJAPUR, (HOBLI), ANEKAL 562125
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
4. BORANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SIDDARAMAPPA,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER AT
BBMP GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL BAIRAVESHWARA
NAGARA, R/AT NO.15
1ST FLOOR, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT,
5TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR,
AMRUTHALLI, NEAR SRIRAMAPPA TEMPLE,
BANGALORE -560092.
5. SYEDABUBAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O FAIROXUDDIN AHMED,
WORKING AS URDU TEACHER AT BBMP GIRLS
HIGH SCHOOL, THIMMAHA ROAD,
R/AT KUSHAL NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560045.
6. KISHORE KUMAR N,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHA GOWDA,
WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER AT BBMP
GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, CLEVELAND TOWN,
R/AT NO.948, KIRAN KISHORE NILAYA,
SHREE MAHALAKSHMI BADAVANE,
KRS MAIN ROAD
MOGARAHALLI SRIRANGAPATNA,
MANDYA-571606.
7. SHADAKASHARI D.V,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O VADAMURTHY D.R,
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
AT BBMP GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
CLEVELAND TOWN,
R/AT. NO.7, ASHRAYA, VIDYANAGARA,
T DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE -560057.
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
8. MAHALAKSHMI.N,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY N,
WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER AT BBMP HIGH
SCHOOL, MAGADI ROAD, R/AT NO 477,
2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS,
RAJESHWARI NAGARA
NEAR FRIENDS CIRCLE,
LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058.
9. REJINA P,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O M P PADMANABHAN,
WORKING AS CHEMISTRY TEACHER AT BBMP GIRLS
HIGH SCHOOL CLEVELAND TOWN BANGALORE,
R/AT NO.22, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
CLEVELAND TOWN,
BANGALORE -560005.
10. INDIRA DEVI S,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
D/O SUNDER, WORKING AS SOCIAL AND ENGLISH
TEACHER AT BBMP GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
CLEVELAND, R/AT NO.724,
NAGAKALIAMMA STREET,
HEMMANNA LAYOUT,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE -560077.
11. SAVITHA. T. N,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O NARAYANA,
WORKING AS MATHS TEACHER AT BBMP GIRLS HIGH
SCHOOL
BASAVANAGARA, R/AT FLAT NO. 5
RAJANI BUILDING, 1ST MAIN 1St CROSS
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE 560085
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K., ADVOCATE)
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
BANGALORE 560001
3. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA)
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560002.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION,
WHITEFIELD,
MAHADEVAPURA-560048.
6. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH MAIN,
9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560011
7. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION,
R.V. ROAD, SOUTH END CIRCLE,
1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560041.
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
8. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION,
AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BELLARI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560092
9. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EDUCATION
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA),
O.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2 (MA NOT FILED)
SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 (VK NOT
FILED))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE R1 TO 3 TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF ALL
THE PETITIONERS AS A LECTURE/ SCHOOL TEACHER AGAINST
THE POST HELD BY THEM AS PER ANNX-L ORDER MADE IN WP
NO.8346/2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or direction, directing the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to regularize the service of
all the petitioners as a Lecture/School Teacher
-6-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
against the post held by them as per annexure L
order made in WP No.8346/2018.
b. Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and
learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 9.
3. The issue in this controversy is directly and
squarely covered by the order of this Court in the case of
Sri. Raghavendra V and Others Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others1. Learned counsel for the parties
jointly submit that, this writ petition may be disposed of in
terms of the said order, which reads as follows:
“In this petition, petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
“a) Issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other writ
quashing the Government Order dated:
07.09.2017 No.NAE 33 MNG 2017 passed by the
Respondent No.3 produced as Annexure-B.1
WP No.8346/2018, disposed of on 06.04.2026
-7-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents to place the resolution of the
Corporation dated 09.08.2016 vide Annexure-J
before the Standing Committee of Education to be
included in the schedule of employment and
implement the said resolution and to take further
steps in terms of Section 88 of the KMC Act of
1976.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Corporation to regularize the services of the
Petitioners on completion of 10 years of service on
par with that of others.
d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents to pay equal pay for equal work as
per the decision of the Hon’ble Court Apex Court
in AIR 2016 SC 5176 in term of Articles 39D of the
Constitution of India.
e) Issue a writ of mandamus to consider the cases of
the Petitioners for regularization on par with that
of others like Revenue Department Social Security
Employees as per the Government order dated
11.07.2017 and Morarji Desai School Teachers
and Part-time Teachers Absorption Rules, 2010.
f) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents not to discriminate in the matter of
absorption and payment of salary.
g) Issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.3
and the Government (R1 & 2) to consider the
cases of the Petitioners on completion of 10 years
of service in extending the security of tenure and
further the case of the Petitioners should also be
considered on completion of 3 years from quasi-
permanent to permanent posts in terms of the
Rule 40-A and 40-B KCSR Rules and also in terms
of 5 of the Karnataka Temporary Service Rules of
1967 as amended and
h) Issue any appropriate a writ or order as deems fit
by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
-8-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present
petition are as under:
The petitioners have been working as Nursery, Pre-
Primary, Primary and High School Teachers in Corporation
Schools run by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 BBMP as
teachers are recruited by outsourcing. The petitioners
have been working as teachers as stated supra for more
than 25 years as on today. The petitioners approached
this Court in W.P.No.27420/2016 and connected matters
seeking regularisation of their service and the said
petition was disposed of by this Court vide final order
dated 28.11.2016 issuing certain directions to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 State and the BBMP. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that despite specific directions
issued by this Court, in the aforesaid W.P.No.27420/2016
and connected matters, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 –
State has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner
for regularisation on the ground that the petitioners were
employed through an outsourcing agency and as such,
the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation.
Aggrieved by the impugned
endorsement/communication/order at Annexure B dated
07.09.2017 and seeking directions for their
regularisation, petitioners are before this Court by way of
the present petition.
-9-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to 11-BBMP and
perused the material on record.
4. Respondent No.4- the outsourcing agency has
been served with notice of the petition and has chosen to
remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the
material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner invited my attention to the impugned
order/communication in order to point out that the only
reason assigned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 State in
rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation is
-by holding that the petitioners having been employed by
respondent No.4 outsourcing agency, which had entered
into an agreement with the respondent BBMP, the
petitioners are not entitled for regularisation. In this
context, he would invite my attention to various
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court
including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dharam Singh & Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr – Civil
Appeal No.8558/2018-19.08.2025, in order to point out
that even persons employed through outsourcing agency
can seek regularisation. It is submitted that the aforesaid
principle has been reiterated in the various judgments of
– 10 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and the impugned
endorsement deserves to be set aside and the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 be directed to regularise the services of the
petitioners in terms of the following judgments on
completion of 10 years, which the petitioners have
completed as on today.
6. In support of his submissions, he places reliance
on the following judgments:
Civil Appeal No.8558/2018-19.08.2025
ii) Pawan Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.
– SLP (C) No.29214/2019 13.02.2026
iii) Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar
Singh – SLP (C) No.17141/2025-10.02.2026
iv) Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors –
SLP (C) No.30762/2024-30.01.2026
v) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors SLP (C)
No.5580/2024-20.12.2024
vi) Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap
Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors – (1992) 2 SCC 29
vii) Bhagwan Das Vs. The Deputy Commissioner
in W.P.No.4478/2022 dated 21.04.2024
viii) Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. Vs. The State
of Gujarat & Ors., in SLP(C) No. 1347/2024
dated 22.08.2025
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would support the impugned order and submits that there
– 11 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8. In support of their contentions, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.3, 5 to 11 places reliance on the
following judgments:
i) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Vs. Ramcharan and
Ors – Civl Appeal Nos.8446-47/2022 dated
05.12.2022.
ii) Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Thane &
Ors Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors – Civil
Appeal No.8856/2022 dated 24.11.2022.
iii) M/s. Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs. Ambrish
Kumar – W.P(C) No.3743/2013 dated
05.12.2025
9. As can be seen from the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this
Court have categorically held that even persons
employed/appointed through outsourcing agencies by the
BBMP are entitled to seek regularisation and mere
labelling of employment is not a decisive factor, especially
when the work is perennial in nature and the respondents
and BBMP are not mere market participants, but
constitutional employers, who cannot take shelter behind
temporary labels for the purpose of declining grant of
regularisation.
10. In Dharam Singh‘s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
– 12 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo
(Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot
become a convenient shield to perpetuate
precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial.
The Commission’s further contention that the
appellants are not “full-time” employees but
continue only by virtue of interim orders also does
not advance their case. That interim protection was
granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to
the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that
did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise
upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those
refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court also declined relief on the footing that the
petitioners had not specifically assailed the
subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However,
that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely
challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High
Court itself directed a fresh decision during
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on
record by the respondents. In such circumstances,
we believe that the High Court was obliged to
examine the legality of the State’s stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the
matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench
of the High Court compounded the error by
affirming the dismissal without engaging with the
principal challenge or the intervening material. The
approach of both the Courts, in reducing the
dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and
“vacancy” while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts
despite perennial need and long service, cannot be
sustained.
– 13 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing
observations, the impugned order of the High Court
cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated
11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in SO far as they
concern the Commission’s proposals for
sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to
address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are
held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary
to recall that the State (here referring to both the
Union and the State governments) is not a mere
market participant but a constitutional employer. It
cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who
perform the most basic and recurring public
functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect that
reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement
practices. The long-term extraction of regular
labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence
in public administration and offends the promise of
equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has
a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that
overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise
work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted
that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is
opaque. The State Departments must keep and
produce accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must
explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious
engagement over sanctioned posts where the work
is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record
should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated
differently, and how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
– 14 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional
discipline that should inform every decision
affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed
service of the appellants, the admitted perennial
nature of their duties, and the material indicating
vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue
the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of
Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand
regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date
on which the High Court directed a fresh
recommendation by the Commission and a fresh
decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the
appellants. For this purpose, the State and the
successor establishment (U.P. Education Services
Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary
posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver
or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard
or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions.
On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at
not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale
for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if
higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the
subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the
pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service
shall count from the date of regularization as given
above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears:
Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full
difference between (a) the pay and admissible
allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level
for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts
actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until
the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the
case may be. Amounts already paid under previous
interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net
arrears shall be released within three months and if
– 15 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound
interest at 6% per annum from the date of default
until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who
has already retired shall be granted regularization
with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity
and other terminal dues. The revised pension and
terminal dues shall be paid within three months of
this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of
Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has
died during pendency, his/her legal representatives
on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii)
up to the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with
clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
V. Compliance affidavit: The Principal
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of
the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission
or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an
affidavit of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders of
this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the
insecurity for those who have already laboured for
years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned
that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance.
As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a
higher standard and therefore it must organise its
perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
– 16 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
budget for lawful engagement, and implement
judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow
these obligations is not mere negligence but rather
it is a conscious method of denial that erodes
livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The
operative scheme we have set here comprising of
creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization,
subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit
of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to
convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that
fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of Civil Appeal No.
8558 of 2018 21 grace, but obligations under
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. In Pawan Kumar‘s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
“9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that
the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo (supra)
supports the case of the appellants in their prayer
for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26,
it has been held as under:
“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 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.
– 17 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
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 sought
to prevent backdoor entries and illegal
appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments
were not illegal but possibly “irregular, and
where employees had served continuously
against the backdrop of sanctioned functions
for 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 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
have continued their 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
– 18 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a 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) also distinguished between
“irregular” and “illegal” appointments
underscoring the importance of 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.
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 longserving employees.
This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It
– 19 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
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.”
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient
to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in
denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the
decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra). The High
Court also erred in affirming the decision of the
Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to similar
reliefs as granted by this Court in Ravi Verma and
Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors.
(supra).
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in
M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the
appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the
same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and
Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors.
(supra). The benefits be released in favour of the
appellants within a period of three months from
today.”
– 20 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
12. In Mahendra Prasad Agarwal’s case supra, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“14. There is no doubt about the fact that the
“consider jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted
these days and if we may use the expression to
throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive
and harms the system.
15. When a claim of a right is legal and
justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or
statutory remedies are not intended for academic
discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be
granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be.
Balancing of equities is not to be confused with
avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not
matters of law, but of its working and practice.
Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that
evolve over a period of time are far more precious
than written laws, as it is in this practice that we
see acceptance and internalization of the spirit of
law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and
develop good practices which become habits. 9
These habits come from the shared belief, values
and attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law.
Legal culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering
habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to
keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient.”
13. In Bhola Nath‘s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a
conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has
satisfactorily discharged his duties over several
years and has been granted repeated extensions
cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or
undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer,
extends to fair treatment of its employees
– 21 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
irrespective of whether their engagement is
contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,
deprecated the practice adopted by States of
engaging employees under the nominal labels of
“part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not
regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, 10 this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair
and stable employment, and evolved the test of
examining whether the duties performed by such
temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7.In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 11 and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, 12 this Court cautioned
against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi
(supra) to deny regularization to temporary
employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was
held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a
shield to legitimise exploitative engagements
continued for years without undertaking regular
recruitment. The Court further clarified that
Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are
merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed
conditions.
13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13, this
Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-
hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as
employers. The Court criticised the practice of
outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means
to evade regular employment obligations, observing
that such measures perpetuate precarious working
conditions while circumventing fair and lawful
engagement practices.
– 22 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
13.9. The State must remain conscious that
part-time employees, such as the appellants,
constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which
the machinery of the State continues to function.
They are not merely ancillary to the system, but
form essential components thereof. The equality
mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free
from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the
State affecting the careers and livelihood of such
part-time and contractual employees are guided by
fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to accept the
respondent-State’s contention that the mere
contractual nomenclature of the appellants’
engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the
appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a
decade pursuant to a due process of selection and
having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory
performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent
reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue
such engagement by taking refuge behind formal
contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly
arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as
follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in
continuing the appellants on sanctioned
vacant posts for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagement and
– 23 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
thereafter denying them consideration for
regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent
reasons or passing a speaking order, is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar
claims for cannot override constitutional
regularization guarantees. Acceptance of
contractual terms does not amount to waiver
of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State
action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely
on contractual labels or mechanical
application of Umadevi (supra) to justify
prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner inconsistent
with fairness, dignity and constitutional
governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct
the respondent-State to forthwith regularize
the services of all the appellants against the
sanctioned posts to which they were initially
appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to
all consequential service benefits accruing
from the date of this judgment.”
14. In Jaggo‘s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held as under:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,
reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers’ rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led
– 24 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
to an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles
of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not
only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the
gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent
that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
23. The International Labour Organization
(ILO), of which India is a founding member, has
consistently advocated for employment stability and
the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s
Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to
observe obligations concerning employment
stability and social security. It emphasizes that
enterprises should assume a leading role in
promoting employment security, particularly in
contexts where job discontinuation could
exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United
State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft
Corporation7 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
– 25 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
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 longterm 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,
– 26 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
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
– 27 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
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.”
15. In Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap
Lecturers Association’s case supra, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
“7. So far as these petitioners and teachers
similarly situated are concerned, it could not be
disputed that many of those teachers who appeared
for selection in pursuance of the High Court order
secured sufficiently high marks but they could not
– 28 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
be regularised because the vacancies are said to be
reserved. But what has been lost sight of is that
petitioners are seeking regularisation on posts on
which they have been working and not fresh
appointments, therefore, they could not be denied
benefit of the High Court’s order specially when no
such difficulty was pointed out and it was on
agreement by the respondents that the order was
passed. No material has been bought on record to
show that any action was taken prior to decision by
the High Court against any institution for not
following the reservation policy. To deny therefore
the benefit of selection held on agreement by the
respondents is being unjust to such selectees.
Further the State of Karnataka appears to have
been regularising services of ad hoc teachers. Till
now it has regularised services of contract lecturers
etc. It may not furnish, any basis for petitioners to
claim that the State may be directed to issue similar
order regularising services of teachers of privately
managed colleges. All the same such policy
decisions of government in favour of one or the
other set of employees of sister department are
bound to raise hopes and expectations in
employees of other departments. That is why it is
incumbent on governments to be more circumspect
in taking such decisions. The petitioners may not be
able to build up any challenge on discrimination as
employees of government colleges and private
colleges may not belong to the same class yet their
claim cannot be negatived on the respondents’
stand in the counter-affidavit that the regularisation
of temporary teachers who have not faces selection
shall impair educational standard without explaining
the effect of regularisation of temporary teachers of
University and even technical colleges. Such being
the unfortunate state of affairs this Court is left with
no option but to issue following directions to
respondents for not honouring its commitments
before the High Court and acting contrary to the
– 29 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
spirit of the order, and also due to failure of
government in remaining vigilant against private
management of the college by issuing timely
directions and taking effective steps for enforcing
the rules;
(1) Services of such temporary teachers who
have worked as such for three years,
including the break till today shall not be
terminated. They shall be absorbed as and
when regular vacancies arise.
(2) If regular selections have been made the
government shall create additional posts to
accommodate such selected candidates.
(3) The teachers who have undergone the
process of selection under the directions of
the High Court and have not been appointed
because of the reservation policy of the
government be regularly appointed by
creating additional posts.
(4) From the date of judgment every temporary
teacher shall be paid salary as is admissible to
teachers appointed against permanent post.
(5) Such teachers shall be continued in service
even during vacations.”
16. In Bhagwan Das‘s case supra, Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has held as under:
“37. The question is as to whether the
services rendered by the workmen through a
contractor till 02.11.2006 and the subsequent
services rendered to the Municipal Authority
through an outsource agency could be taken note of
for the purpose of considering regularization of the
petitioners services under the principal employer.
38. This very aspect was considered by the
Apex Court in Shripal & Anr v. Nagar Nigam,
– 30 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
Ghaziabad4 [Shripal] and Jaggo v. Union of India
and Others5 [Jaggo].
39. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms has
recognized the system of contract labour/ out-
sourcing as methods of avoiding direct recruitment.
The relevant observations of the Apex Court in
Jaggo (supra) are as follows:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers’ rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the
gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and
undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When
public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig
economy but also sets a concerning precedent
that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
24. The landmark judgment of the
United States in the case of Vizcaino v.
Microsoft Corporation 97F.3d1187 (9th Cir.
1996) 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
– 31 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
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:
xxxx
• 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.”
– 32 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
The Apex Court has also specifically observed
that the Judgment in Umadevi (supra) cannot be
invoked to defeat the legitimate claims of the
employees. The observations at para 26 and 27
reads as follows:
“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
– 33 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
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.”
40. The same position has been reiterated in
Shripal (supra) at the following paras of the
Judgment:
“11. Furthermore, the Employer’s
stance that there was never a direct
employer-employee relationship is wholly
unsubstantiated. If, in fact, the Appellant
Workmen had been engaged solely through a
contractor, the Employer would have
necessarily maintained some form of contract
documentation, license copies, or invoices
substantiating the contractor’s role in hiring,
paying, and supervising these workers.
However, no such documents have been
placed on record. Additionally, the Employer
has failed to establish that wages were ever
paid by any entity other than its own
Horticulture Department, which strongly
indicates direct control and supervision over
the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks is a hallmark
of an employer-employee relationship. Had
there been a legitimate third-party contractor,
one would expect to see details such as
– 34 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
tender notices, contract agreements,
attendance records maintained by the
contractor, or testimony from the contractor’s
representatives. The absence of these crucial
elements undermines the Employer’s claim of
outsourced engagement. In fact, it appears
that the Workmen were reporting directly to
the Horticulture Department officials,
receiving instructions on their duties, and
drawing wages issued under the Municipality’s
authority. This pattern of direct oversight and
wage disbursement substantially negates the
narrative that they were “contractor’s
personnel.” Consequently, the discontinuation
of their services carried out without
compliance with statutory obligations
pertaining to notice, retrenchment
compensation, or approval under Section 6E
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, stands on
precarious ground. The very foundation of the
Employer’s defense (i.e., lack of an employer-
employee relationship) is not supported by
any credible or contemporaneous evidence.
12. The evidence, including
documentary material and undisputed facts,
reveals that the Appellant Workmen
performed duties integral to the Respondent
Employer’s municipal functions specifically the
upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city
beautification efforts. Such work is evidently
perennial rather than sporadic or project-
based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh
recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor
protections to long-serving workmen. On the
contrary, the acknowledged shortage of
Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
reinforces the notion that these positions are
essential and ongoing, not intermittent.
– 35 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that
daily-wage or temporary employees cannot
claim permanent absorption in the absence of
statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi
itself distinguishes between appointments that
are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the
latter being eligible for regularization if they
meet certain conditions. More importantly,
Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no
true contractor-based arrangement and a
consistent need for permanent horticultural
staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued
unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant
Workmen continuously rendered their services
over several years, sometimes spanning more
than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer’s
failure to furnish such records-despite
directions to do so allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and
legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement…”
– 36 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
17. In Shah Samir Bharatbhai’s case supra, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
“4. Academicians, lecturers and professors are
the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they
dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and
character of future generations. Their work goes far
beyond delivering lessons-it involves mentoring,
guiding research, nurturing critical thinking, and
instilling values that contribute to the progress of
society. However, in many contexts, the
compensation and recognition extended to them do
not truly reflect the significance of their
contribution. When educators are not treated with
dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it
diminishes the value a country places on knowledge
and undermines the motivation of those entrusted
with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair
remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the
importance of their role and reinforce the nation’s
commitment to quality education, innovation, and a
brighter future for its youth.
5. It is just not enough to keep reciting
gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at
public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it
must be reflected in the way the nation treats its
teachers.
Xxxxx
31. The appellants were seeking parity of pay.
The prayer for regularization, though made in the
earlier rounds of litigation was never accepted. The
facts of the present case are rather egregious.
Assistant professors appointed on contractual basis
during 2011 to 2025 have been working at
abysmally low monthly emoluments for the last two
decades. While there is no material whatsoever
drawing out a distinction between the duties and
functions performed by them and that of their
– 37 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026CNR: KAHC010317952026
colleagues appointed regularly or on ad hoc basis,
they continue to draw monthly salary of Rs.
30,000/-.”
18. In the instant case, the material on record
clearly indicates that the petitioners have been working
as teachers in Nursery, Pre-Primary, Primary and High
School in corporate schools run by the BBMP and in the
light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, merely because the petitioners were
outsourcing appointed as teachers through respondent
No.4 agency, it cannot be said that the services of the
petitioners cannot be regularised and the impugned order
deserves to be quashed.
19. Insofar as the various contentions urged by the
respondents in the statement of objections are
concerned, except stating that the petitioners were
contract employees and had been appointed through
outsourcing agency, no other valid or sufficient ground
has been made out by the respondents either in the
statement of objections or in the impugned order so as to
deny the benefit of regularisation in favour of the
petitioners.
20. Under these circumstances, the various
contentions urged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deny
the benefit of regularisation in favour of the petitioners
cannot be accepted. In the result, I pass the following:
– 38 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37851
WP No. 14484 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010317952026
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 07.09.2017 at
Annexure- B is hereby quashed.
iii) The respondents are directed to take
necessary step to consider the regularization of the
petitioners and pass appropriate orders on
completion of 10 years of service by the petitioner
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.”
4. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the
representations of the petitioners dated
06.04.2026 vide Annexures-A and B, and pass
an appropriate order in accordance with law
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order;
iii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
