Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Kannauje vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
1 / 19
2026:CGHC:12866
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN WPS No. 2531 of 2026
KUMAR JHA
1 - Ashok Kannauje S/o Tukaram Kannauje Aged About 54 Years R/o Dhamni,
Kirwai Tahsil Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
2 - Prakash Kumar Nayak S/o Devnath Nayak Aged About 31 Years R/o Gurugovind
Singh Ward No. 36, Jagdalpur , District- Bastar (C.G.)
3 - Hemkumari Nag W/o Maniram Nag Aged About 50 Years R/o Nainpur, Rajkot,
District- Bastar (C.G.)
4 - Savita Das D/o Maniram Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Sadak Para, Rajur,
District- Bastar, (C.G.)
5 - Budharu Gilhare S/o Biselal Gilhare Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 4,
Baroda District- Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Anil Kumar Baghel S/o Budharu Ram Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Dau Mill
Gali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.)
7 - Radhamani W/o Kateshwar Aged About 41 Years R/o Halba Para, Jaitgiri
District- Bastar, (C.G.)
8 - Khelan Das Ogre S/o Jagat Ram Ogre Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 4
Banrasi Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.)
9 - Ayti Manjhi D/o Bhawani Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram Panchayat
Bajawand, District- Bastar, (C.G.)
10 - Purnima Yadav W/o Mansukh Lal Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 68
Yadav Para, Raipura District- Raipur (C.G.)
11 - Farsuram S/o Prabhuram Aged About 41 Years R/o Kumhli, District- Bastar,
(C.G.)
12 - Nirmala Dhruw W/o Khubchand Dhruw Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Akoli,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
13 - Sohan Bore S/o Pochaiya Bore Aged About 41 Years R/o New Hospital Para,
Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
14 - Laxmi Kashyap W/o Payaku Kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And
Post Nelasnar, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
2 / 19
15 - Laxman Bhogam S/o Kova Bhogam Aged About 37 Years R/o Balaji Camp,
Gangalur Post Gangalur District- Bijapur (C.G.)
16 - Suresh Kumar S/o Uderam Aged About 45 Years R/o Satnami Para Village
Datan (Khaira) Tahsil Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
17 - Lakhan Lal Manjhi S/o Bhawani Ram Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Halba
Para, Farsegarh P.S. Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
18 - Khushi Kumar Mehar S/o Shyamlal Mehar, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.
2, Basti Para, Emarpali District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
19 - Rinku Modiyam S/o Bhima Modiyam Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Heerapur
, Basagud, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
20 - Pandu Telam S/o Masa Ram Telam Aged About 40 Years R/o Dongripara
Bijapur District- Bijapur (C.G.)
21 - Priyanka Khadi D/o Mansharam Jhadi Aged About 26 Years R/o Dipo Para,
Bijapur District- Bijapur (C.G.)
22 - Manvati Chalki D/o Durupsai Chalki Aged About 32 Years R/o School Para
Mukinar District- Bijapur (C.G.)
23 - Maleshwari Katkam W/o Gouri Shankar Katkam Aged About 44 Years R/o
School Para Saknapali Bareguda District- Bijapur (C.G.)
24 - Shivcharan Markam S/o Garib Aged About 45 Years R/o Basantpur, P.S.
Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
25 - Sammi Uika W/o Sampat Uika Aged About 49 Years R/o Village And Post
Awapalli, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
26 - Nagesh Karam S/o Narayan Karam Aged About 30 Years R/o Kamar Guda
Post Murdanda, District- Bijapur (C.G.)
27 - Maheshwar Ekka S/o Chhertu Ekka Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Petrol
Pump, Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
28 - Radheshyam Kewant S/o Ramnarayan Kewat Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward
No. 12, Kera Road Kanasda District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
29 - Shivkumar Verma S/o Manrakhan Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 8,
Pendrawan Tahsil Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.)
30 - Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Gangaram Chaturvedi Aged About 36 Years R/o
Verma Para, Ghotwani, District- Durg (C.G.)
31 - Sudhram S/o Gunja Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Vtc Ichkela P.O. Ichkela
District- Jashpur (C.G.
32 - Sagantin Sori W/o Santosh Sori, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 17,
Karsing P.O. Bamni Bazar, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
33 - Suresh Kumar S/o Joshan Dhruw Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Panchayat
Siganpur, Keshkal, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
3 / 19
34 - Nohru Ram Poyam S/o Pito Ram Poyam Aged About 47 Years R/o Village And
Post Girola District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
35 - Kapur Lal Netam S/o Kamlu Ram Netam Aged About 40 Years R/o Nayapara,
Samapur, Makdi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
36 - Rakesh Kumar Netam S/o Balram Netam Aged About 41 Years R/o Uppar
Para, Makdi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
37 - Toran Yadav S/o Ramji Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Armarikala
District- Balod (C.G.)
38 - Gajadhar Dhruw S/o Shivlal Dhruw Aged About 44 Years R/o Vtc Hirawandi
Post Heerapur, Makdi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
39 - Mangaram Mandavi S/o Malsai Mandavi Aged About 43 Years R/o Bazar Para,
Makdi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
40 - Maniram Churendra S/o Kalyan Singh Churendra Aged About 54 Years R/o
House No. 229 Sanjay Nagar, Kotera, District- Balod (C.G.)
41 - Chaitram Markam S/o Gudram Markam Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Gadhbegal, District- Narayanpur (C.G.)
42 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Girivar Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 6,
Badgaon, District- Balod (C.G.)
43 - Dharam Nishad S/o Bharat Nishad Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 20,
Khatti, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
44 - Raju Dhimar S/o Gangaram Dhimar Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Old Malaria
Office Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
45 - Lokesh Kumar Thakur S/o Lalaram Thakur Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Badrenga, Tahsil Lohandiguda District- Bastar (C.G.)
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Nawa Raipur ,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh General Administration Department
Atal Nagar, Raipur Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Finance Department Atal Nagar,
Raipur Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Atal Nagar Raipur Nawa Raipur
District- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - The Director, Ayurved Yog And Natural Medicine Yunani, Siddha And
Homeopathy (Ayush) Atal Nagar, Nagar, Raipur Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate
4 / 19
For Respondents-State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
18/03/2026
1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order,
thereby directing the respondent authorities to
take policy decision for conversion of part time
sweeper like petitioners as full time sweeper,
within stipulated time.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order,
thereby directing the respondent authorities to
decide the pending representation filed by the
petitioners through their Union namely
Chhattisgarh Ayush Safai Karamchari Kalyan
Sangh.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may
deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances
of the case including award of the costs of the
petition may be given.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are working as
Part-Time Sweeper under Respondent-department since 1992. According
to respondents, the order of regularization of petitioners could not be
passed because of extra financial burden upon the State. She submits
that the matter is pending before the Finance Department for financial
approval with regard to the payment of salary to be paid to employees like
petitioners after their regularization. She contended that the petitioners
have submitted representation dated 08.09.2025 through their union
before the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur
with a prayer for regularizing their services and therefore, direction be
issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the
representation submitted by their union, expeditiously within specified
time frame.
5 / 19
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would
submit that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and
are only seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider and take
decision on the representation dated 08.09.2025 submitted by the
petitioners through their union, she is having no objection to the limited
prayer.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
5. The grievance of petitioners as projected in this writ petition is that they
are continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with
the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary
employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid
to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees
who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but
irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years
and observed thus:-
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may
be cases where irregular appointments (not
illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA
(supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and
referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts
might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but
without the intervention of orders of courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the
services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases above referred
to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should
take steps to regularize as a one time measure,
the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of
6 / 19courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitment are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or
daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months
from this date. We also clarify that regularization,
if any already made, but not subjudice, need not
be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further by-passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme.”
6. After the decision in case of Umadevi (supra), State Government has
issued circular addressing to all the stakeholders of different departments
of the State of Chhattisgarh on 05.03.2008 with the subject that
regularization of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage
employee or temporary employee. In the aforementioned notification, it is
mentioned that the procedure for regularization of services of Class III
and Class IV employees working as daily-wage or temporary employees.
Paragraph 2 of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference:-
“2. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के निर्णय के परिप्रेक्ष्य
में राज्य शासन द्वारा सहानुभूतिपूर्वक विचार कर दैनिक वेतन
भोगी/तदर्थ रूप से नियुक्त कर्मचारियों की नियमितिकरण की
प्रक्रिया निम्नानुसार निर्धारित की जाती है :-
(i) व्यक्ति, रिक्त/स्वीकृ त नियमित पद के विरुद्ध पदस्थ किया
गया हो और विभागीय भरती नियमों में निर्धारित शैक्षणिक
एवं अन्य योग्यताएं रखता हो तो ही नियमित करने योग्य है।
(ii) दैनिक वेतन पर, तदर्थ रूप से अथवा कलेक्टर दर पर
(दैनिक वेतन पर) जब नियुक्ति हुई तब से अब तक उस पद की
आवश्यकता रही है और आगे भी उस पद की आवश्यकता हो तो
संबंधित पद के विरुद्ध ऐसे व्यक्ति को पदस्थ मानते हुए विचार
किया जा सके गा।
(iii) संबंधित व्यक्ति ने दैनिक वेतन भोगी (चाहे कलेक्टर दर
पर) के रूप में अथवा तदर्थ रूप में दिनांक 31-12-1997 तक
लगातार उसी पद पर या समकक्ष पद पर कार्य किया हो के
संबंध में लगातार कार्य करना (सेवा देना) तब ही माना जायेगा
यदि प्रत्येक वर्ष में कु ल सेवा ब्रेक एक माह से अधिक की न हो।
लगातार सेवा के लिये हड़ताल की अवधि सेवा में ब्रेक नहीं
मानी जायेगी ।
7 / 19
(iv) दिनांक 31-12-1997 तक दैनिक वेतन पर अथवा तदर्थ
नियुक्त एवं कार्यरत तृतीय एवं चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों का
नियमितिकरण किया जाय ।
(v) व्यक्ति यदि कार्यभारित पदों के विरुद्ध कार्यरत है तो
कार्यभारित पद पर ही नियमित किया जाए नियमित पद के
विरुद्ध कार्यरत हो तो नियमित पद पर ही नियमित किया
जाए।
(vi) छत्तीसगढ़ लोक सेवा (अनुसूचित जातियों, अनुसूचित
जनजातियों, और अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों के लिये आरक्षण)
अधिनियम, 1994 का पालन किया जावे अर्थात् दैनिक वेतन
भोगी/तदर्थ रूप में कार्यरत व्यक्ति जिस वर्ग से संबंधित है
रोस्टर के अनुसार उसी बिन्दु के समक्ष उसका नियमितिकरण
किया जाये एवं रोस्टर में अनुसूचित जाति, अनुसूचित
जनजाति, अन्य पिछड़े वर्ग के बिन्दु यदि उम्मीदवार के अभाव
में रिक्त रहते हैं तो भविष्य में होने वाली रिक्तियों की पूर्ति
आरक्षित बिन्दुओं के लिये प्राथमिकता के आधार पर बैकलाग
की पूर्ति की तरह की जायेगी।
(vii) नियमितिकरण स्वीकृ त एवं रिक्त पद पर ही किया जाएगा
। इस हेतु जिन विभागों में आवश्यक हो वहां सांख्येतर पद
निर्मित किये जायें। यदि पद ही कलेक्टर दर पर स्वीकृ त हो तो
स्वीकृ त पदों (दैनिक वेतन पर) को नियमित वेतनमान में
परिवर्तित (सृजित) करना होगा।
(viii) परिपत्र जारी होने के बाद शासकीय विभागों द्वारा
नियमितिकरण के आदेश जिस दिन जारी किये जायेंगे उसी
दिनांक से ही नियमित कर्मचारी माने जावेंगे। पूर्व के किसी
दिनांक से नहीं। पदक्रम सूची में इनके नाम आपसी वरिष्ठता
अनुसार एनब्लाक सबसे नीचे रखे जायेंगे।
(ix) उपरोक्तानुसार नियमित रूप से नियुक्ति दी गई व्यक्तियों
की आपसी वरिष्ठता दैनिक वेतन भोग कर्मचारी/कलेक्टर दर
पर, अथवा तदर्थ रूप से कार्यभार ग्रहण के दिनांक के आधार प
निर्धारित की जावेगी । वरिष्ठताक्रम निर्धारित करते समय यदि
एक से अधिक व्यक्ति एक दिनांक में नियुक्त किये गये हों तो
उनमें से जो आयु में अधिक होगा उसे वरिष्ठ माना जाएगा.”
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India
& Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 while considering the
claim of part-time/ad hoc employees appointed as Safaiwale, Khalasi who
earlier engaged in CWC Establishment at Faridabad had observed thus:-
“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.
8 / 19
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.
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 Declaration6
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 judgment 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 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
9 / 19judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications
and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation.
While the foundational purpose of temporary
contracts may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a
mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed
to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
\• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even
when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or notice,
as seen in the present case. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between
them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
\• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This
practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even
when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to
undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
10 / 19
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries
and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its
principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied
to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It
categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for
more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees,
even in cases where their appointments are not
illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite
the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no
vested right to regularization exists for temporary
employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,
it is imperative for government departments to
lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary
basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization’s functioning,
not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices,
government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness that
they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive
precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour
practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings,
the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set
11 / 19aside and the original application is allowed to the
following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are
quashed;ii. The appellants shall be taken back on
duty forthwith and their services regularised
forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be
entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for
the period they have not worked for but would be
entitled to continuity of services for the said period
and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.”
8. Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs State
of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon’ble Supreme Court after
referring its earlier decisions on the very issue, has concluded thus:-
“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
India10, 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 Nigam11, and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India12, 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 fulfillment 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.
12 / 19
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 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 regularization cannot override
constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of
contractual terms does not amount to waiver of
fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations
13 / 19cannot 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 .
9. Following the decision in the case of Jaggo (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 while considering the claim of
regularization of the appellants therein had observed thus:-
“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.
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting,
pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant
Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still
compensating them inadequately and
inconsistently the Respondent Employer has
effectively engaged in an unfair labour
practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal
work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court,
cannot be casually disregarded when workers
have served for extended periods in roles
resembling those of permanent employees.
Long-standing assignments under the
Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion
that these were mere short-term casual
engagements.
14 / 19
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. At this juncture, it would
be appropriate to recall the broader critique of
indefinite “temporary” employment practices
as done by a recent judgment of this court in
Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following
paragraphs:
“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……….
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose
of temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs, they
have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
and integral to the functioning of an institution
15 / 19are often labelled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination : Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without
cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state
of constant insecurity, regardless of the
quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits :
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects
them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.”
16. The High Court did acknowledge the
Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt
terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-
engagement on daily wages with some
measure of parity in minimum pay.
Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness : the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain
status. While the High Court recognized the
importance of their work and hinted at
eventual regularization, it failed to afford them
continuity of service or meaningful back
wages commensurate with the degree of
statutory violation evident on record.
16 / 19
17. In light of these considerations, the
Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen stands in violation of the most basic
labour law principles. Once it is established
that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they
were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to
perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of
municipal budget and compliance with
recruitment rules merit consideration, such
concerns do not absolve the Employer of
statutory obligations or negate equitable
entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations
cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen
who have served continuously in de facto
regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to
the extent they confine the Appellant
Workmen to future daily-wage engagement
without continuity or meaningful back wages,
is hereby set aside with the following
directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen’s services, effected without
compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In
consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall
be treated as continuing in service from the
date of their termination, for all purposes,
including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate
the Appellant Workmen in their respective
posts (or posts akin to the duties they
previously performed) within four weeks from
the date of this judgment. Their entire period
of absence (from the date of termination until
actual reinstatement) shall be counted for
continuity of service and all consequential
benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for
promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the
Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%
of the back wages from the date of their
discontinuation until their actual
reinstatement. The Respondent Employer
shall clear the aforesaid dues within three
months from the date of their reinstatement.
17 / 19
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for
regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six
months from the date of reinstatement, duly
considering the fact that they have performed
perennial municipal duties akin to permanent
posts. In assessing regularization, the
Employer shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such
requirements were never applied to the
Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated
regular employees in the past. To the extent
that sanctioned vacancies for such duties
exist or are required, the Respondent
Employer shall expedite all necessary
administrative processes to ensure these
longtime employees are not indefinitely
retained on daily wages contrary to statutory
and equitable norms.”
10.Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly
deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity
as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized 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 and observed thus:
“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
18 / 19opaque. 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 insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.
x x x
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case,
orders of this Court in such matters have been
met with fresh technicalities, rolling
“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which
further prolongs the insecurity for those who have
already laboured for years on daily wages.
Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such
cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it
demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a
higher standard and therefore it must organise its
perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create
a budget for lawful engagement, and implement
judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to
follow these obligations is not mere negligence
but rather it is a conscious method of denial that
erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers.
The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits,
and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India.”
11. In the above facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court and further considering that the petitioners have submitted
representation dated 08.09.2025 before the Secretary, Department of
19 / 19
Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur raising all the grounds as raised in this
writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, I find it appropriate to dispose of
this writ petition directing the Secretary, Department of Medical Education
(Ayush), Raipur to consider and take decision on the representation dated
08.09.2025 as submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law,
keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed
above, preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of
the representation.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
Digitally
PAWAN signed
KUMAR by
JHA
PAWAN (Parth Prateem Sahu)
KUMAR
JHA Judge
pwn