BAHADUR MAHATO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 6692 of 2025
1. Bahadur Mahato, aged about 47 years, son of Puran Mahato, resident
of Village Kandra, P.O. Ramnagargh, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad.
2. Md. Sahir Hossain, aged about 45 years, son of Shaikh Abdul Hakim,
resident of Village & P.O. Manirampur, P.S. Pakur (M), District Pakur.
3. Md. Nasimuddin, aged about 47 years, son of Md. Syed Ali, resident of
Village Juhibona, P.O. Agloi, P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj
(Jharkhand).
4. Sujata Sarkar, aged about 46 years, daughter of Shyamal Kumar Sarkar,
resident of Birsa Chowk, P.O. & P.S. & District Pakur.
5. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Shiv Prasad
Jaiswal, resident of At+P.O. Bogan Para, P.S. & District Pakur.
6. Amrit Kumar Ojha, aged about 48 years, son of Late Abhimanyu Prasad
Ojha, resident of At-Baliharpur, P.O., P.S. & District Pakur.
7. Pramod Kumar Jha, aged about 57 years, son of Late Paras Nath Jha,
resident of Prasidh Niwas, P.O. Bilasi Town, P.S. & District Deoghar.
8. Md. Madrul Husain (handwritten correction over the printed name Md.
Badrul Husain), aged about 53 years, son of Md. Ebadul Haque, resident
of At+P.O. Islampur, P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj.
9. Md. Tarjem Shaikh, aged about 49 years, son of Md. Moin Hossain,
resident of At+P.O. Makdampur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur.
10. Md. Abdus Samad, aged about 43 years, son of Md. Zakiruddin,
resident of Village Borha, P.O. Radipur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur.
11. Md. Abul Hasanat Mollah, aged about 50 years, son of Md. Harunor
Rasid Mollah, resident of Gram Bankura, P.O. Kanakpur, P.S. Maheshpur,
District Pakur, Jharkhand – 816106.
12. Sanjeev Kumar Mandal, aged about 49 years, son of Mahadev Mandal,
resident of Village Mahubani, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
13. Rajesh Kumar Mandal, aged about 54 years, son of Shankar Mandal,
resident of Village Susnilewa, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District
Dhanbad.
14. Umakant Saha, aged about 47 years, son of Nakul Chandra Saha,
resident of At-Bagshisha, P.O. Dangapara, P.S. & District Pakur.
15. Subhash Saw, aged about 44 years, son of Lakshman Saw, resident of
Village Nagwan, P.O. Choudhran, P.S. Lohandih, District Hazaribagh.
16. Phatik Chandra Mahato, aged about 48 years, son of Shatrughan
Mahato, resident of Village Badua, P.O. Jhalbarda, P.S. Chandankiyari,
District Bokaro.
17. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Jaleshwar Ram, resident
of Village+P.O. Patratu, P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi.
1

2026:JHHC:31967
18. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Ram Nath Sah,
resident of Village Kushpahari, P.O. Barmaria, P.S. Shikaripara, District
Dumka.
19. Binod Kumar Sah, aged about 50 years, son of Sita Ram Sah, resident
of Village+P.O. Lakra Pahari, P.S. Jama, District Dumka.
20. Jay Raj Bhagat, aged about 47 years, son of Ram Chandra Bhagat,
resident of Cinema Road, Babupara, P.O. Head Post Office, P.S. Town
Police Station, District Dumka.
21. Rajendra Prasad Sah, aged about 57 years, son of Late Ganpat Sah,
resident of Village Lagla, P.O. Liltari, P.S. Jama, District Dumka.
22. Gourang Saha, aged about 43 years, son of Santosh Kumar Saha,
resident of Village+P.O. Pathra, P.S. Ranishwar, District Dumka.
23. Prabhat Kumar Mandal, aged about 44 years, son of Lakshmi Kanta
Mandal, resident of Village Jamjuri, P.O. &P.S.- Pratappur, District
Dumka.
24. Ranjeet Prasad Gupta, aged about 52 years, son of Arjun Prasad Gupta,
resident of Kali Rakha, Ram Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S. & District Deoghar.
25. Neelam Kumari, aged about 50 years, daughter of Bholanath Singh,
resident of At-Pokharia, P.O. & P.S. & District Sahibganj.
26. Kajal Kumar Deo, aged about 42 years, son of Anup Narayan Deo,
resident of P.O. Sangram Lodhia, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar.
27. Sunil Kumar Das, aged about 54 years, son of Satish Chandra Das,
resident of Village & P.O. Chanddih, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar.
28. Nand Kishor Yadav, aged about 51 years, son of Late Jageshwar
Yadav, resident of At-Bhura, P.O. Pathardda, P.S. Madhupur, District
Deoghar.
29. Sushil Kumar Yadav, aged about 47 years, son of Late Mahadev Prasad
Yadav, resident of Harinmara, P.O. Sahara, P.S. Jarmundi, District
Deoghar.
30. Kanchan Kumar Mandal, aged about 49 years, daughter of Lakshmi
Kanta Mandal, resident of Village Jamjuri, P.O. Pratappur, P.S. Ranishwar,
District Dumka.
31. Shambhu Prasad Yadav, aged about 53 years, son of Late Dhirjoo
Mahto, resident of Village Nawadih, P.O. Koeridih, P.S. Jasidih, District
Deoghar.
32. Shreenath Yadav, aged about 54 years, son of Ghuhan Yadav, resident
of Village Pahridih, P.O. Baramsoli, P.S. Chitra, District Deoghar.
33. Anand Prakash Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Anadi Shankar
Singh, resident of At+P.O. Karon, P.S. Karon, District Deoghar.
34. Jairam Prasad Ray, aged about 52 years, son of Bisnu Prasad Ray,
resident of Village Aluwara, P.O. Sirsa, P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar.
2

2026:JHHC:31967
35. Md. Nezamuddin, aged about 48 years, son of Md. Shamsul Haque,
resident of Village Bhoju Chak, P.O. Malia Chak, Block Mahagama, P.S.
Hanwara, District Godda.
36. Md. Raza Faridi, aged about 47 years, son of Md. Shahid, resident of
At-Belpara, P.O. &P.S.- Madadupur, District Deoghar.
37. Sanjay Kumar Raut, aged about 48 years, son of Kamdeo Prasad Raut,
resident of Rakhabouri, P.O. Sapter, P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar.
38. Md. Sattar, aged about 48 years, son of Md. Tahir Ali, resident of
Ramkol, P.O. & P.S. Hanwara, District Godda.
39. Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Nand Kishor Singh,
resident of Village Manikpur, P.O. & P.S. Burhai, District Deoghar.
40. Dharmendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 47 years, son of Bhukhal
Mahto, resident of Village Sadariyadih, P.O. Nadkhurkee, P.S. Baghmara,
District Dhanbad.
41. Madhukar Prasad, aged about 52 years, son of Rajkumar Prasad,
resident of Savitri Raj Kutir, Jamadoba Road, P.O. Bhaga, P.S. Jorapokhar,
District Dhanbad.
42. Geet Gobind Prasad Mahato, aged about 48 years, son of Basudeo
Prasad Mahato, resident of Village & P.O. Bagdaha, P.S. Rajganj, District
Dhanbad.
43. Kameshwar Mahato, aged about 46 years, son of Haradhan Mahato,
resident of Village Chhota Jamua, P.O. Tiliaya, P.S. Barwadda, District
Dhanbad.
44. Md. Gulab Ansari, aged about 43 years, son of Late Sultan Ansari,
resident of Village Fakiridih, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
45. Bikash Kumar Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Biswanath Singh,
resident of Bada Pandeyih, P.O. & P.S. Khanduli, District Dhanbad.
46. Md. Nasim Akhtar, aged about 43 years, son of Md. Ismail Ansari,
resident of Village Matiyala, P.O. Jangalpur, P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanbad.
47. Hareshwar Nath Ojha, aged about 51 years, son of Shivji Ojha,
resident of Village Sunder Nagar, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. Jealgora, P.S.
Gora Pokhar, District Dhanbad.
48. Pramod Kumar Gupta, aged about 48 years, son of Late Shree Laljit
Prasad Gupta, resident of Karnahibli, P.O. &P.S.- Shiv Pahar, District
Dumka.
49. Rishi Ranjan Sinha, aged about 46 years, son of Nripendra Chandra
Sinha, resident of Krishna Colony, P.O.+P.S.+District Pakur.
50. Katyayan Upadhyay, aged about 49 years, son of Brijeshwar
Upadhyay, resident of Village Ankraha (Chetma), P.O. Chetma, P.S. Patan,
District Palamu.
3

2026:JHHC:31967
51. Bineet Shekhar, aged about 45 years, son of Late Himanshu Kumar
Mandal, resident of Village Sarmi, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Dumka,
PIN – 814102.. …… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department,
having his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy
Department, having his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
having its office at Project Office, Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium
Road, Sector-3, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi – 834004.
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Das, Sr. Adv
Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Choudhary, Adv
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-III
For the Resp.-JEPS : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Adv
….…..
C.A.V. ON: 26/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:02 /11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction
upon the respondents to regularize their services who are working as Cluster
Resource Person since last almost two decades and the petitioners have also
prayed for fixation of their salary in the pay scale applicable to Upper Primary
School Teachers as previously the job of Cluster Resource Person/Block
Resource Person was being discharged by Upper Primary School Teachers who
were deputed against the said posts.
Case of the Petitioners
4

2026:JHHC:31967
3. The Government of India for achieving the goal of universal
elementary education had framed Sarvsiksha Abhiyan. The said scheme
subsequently has merged with the Samagra Siksha Abhiyan which is presently
in vogue. Initially, for the implementation of the programme, primary school
teachers from government schools were deputed as Cluster Resource Centre
Coordinators and Block Resource Centre Coordinators. The duty of the Cluster
Resource Centre Coordinators and Block Resource Centre Coordinators were
to ensure that the quality of education is maintained at the Cluster and Block
levels by continuously maintaining and evaluating the manner in which
education is being imparted, its impact on students and finding/suggesting steps
for betterment of education at elementary level. Subsequently, the post of
Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator was renamed as Cluster Resource Person
and Block Resource Centre Coordinator as Block Resource Person.
4. The Government subsequently felt the need to recruit regular Cluster
Resource Person/Block Resource Person. For the purposes thereof, the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, vide letter No.
JEPC/2206 dated 08.01.2005 (Annexure-1), directed all the Deputy
Commissioners to take the services of most eligible persons of the Cluster
Resource Persons by direct recruitment for which advertisements were directed
to be issued.
The Cluster Resource Persons were to be appointed at an honorarium
of Rs. 100 to 300 per day based on their performance. The Cluster Resource
Persons were made responsible for evaluation of progress made by the schools
5

2026:JHHC:31967
in terms of quality education, job training of teachers, impart education, etc. on
the basis of the said directions, advertisements were issued from time to time
for filling up posts of Cluster Resource Person and Block Resource Person
(Annexure 2).
5. The petitioner nos. 1, 15 to 81 were appointed as Cluster Resource
Person in various districts. It is relevant to mention herein that all these
petitioners have the qualification of B.Ed. and have also qualified JTET
(Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test). Details of their educational
qualifications have been mentioned in a tabular form in paragraph 11 of the writ
application.
6. Similarly, petitioner nos. 2 to 17 had applied and were selected and
appointed against the post of Block Resource Persons in various blocks. All
these petitioners have the qualification of Post Graduate with B.Ed. degree and
all the petitioners have qualified JTET. Details of their qualifications and dates
of joining have been mentioned in a separate chart in paragraph 14 of the writ
application.
7. It is relevant to mention herein that the duties and the responsibilities
of Cluster Resource Person and Block Resource Person are duly enumerated in
Memo No. JEPC/SRD/793 and Memo No. JEPC/SRD/723, both dated
15.07.2005 (Annexure 4), the perusal of which would show that the Cluster
Resource Persons and the Block Resource Persons are integral to the scheme
of universalization of primary education in India and are discharging the
services of Upper Primary School Teachers for maintain the quality of
education at the grass-root level.
6

2026:JHHC:31967
8. From time to time, the honorarium of the petitioners has been
increased. Vide letter dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure 5), the wages of Cluster
Resource Persons (CRPs) were increased to Rs.9000/- per month for untrained
and Rs.9500/- per month for Graduate Trained CRPs.
9. Similarly, the wages of Block Resource Persons (BRPs) were fixed
at Rs.9500/- per month and for Post Graduate Trained BRPs Rs.10,500/- per
month. Subsequently, vide Memo Mo. ME/01/1008/2019/2531 dated
24.07.2019 and Memo No. 16/1-05/2024 …888/Ranchi dated 126.07.2024, the
wages of the CRPs and BRPs were revised as Rs. 17,500/- per month for
Trained BRPs, Rs. 10,500/- per month for Untrained BRPs, Rs. 16,500/- per
month for Trained CRPs and Rs. 15,500/- for Untrained BRPs. The monthly
emoluments were again revised in the year 2024 to Rs. 27,500/- per month and
Rs. 26,000/- per month for Trained and Untrained BRPs respectively; whereas,
for Trained and Untrained CRPs the same were enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- per
month and Rs. 23,900/- per month respectively (Annexure 6).
10. The petitioners were also assigned magisterial duties during
examination conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The petitioners
also assisted the State in various capacities just like other governmental
th
officials/servants. In the 38 meeting of the State Executive Committee for
Jharkhand Education Project Council held on 04.09.2014, it was decided that
such CRPs who have B.Ed./D.El./ED./DPE. certificates from institutes duly
recognized by NCTE were to be named as Cluster Resource Central
Coordinators and their services will be taken as CRCCs with effect from the
next financial year and in compliance of such decision, the State Project
7

2026:JHHC:31967
Director vide Memo No. PED/04/40/2014-2017 (Annexure 7), directed all
Deputy Collectors-cum-Chairman, District Executive Committee to ensure
implementation of the said decision.
However, subsequently, vide another letter bearing No.
PED/04/40/2014/852 dated 28.04.2015 (Annexure 7/1), the said letter was
suspended without assigning any reason in a most arbitrary manner. The
petitioners since then had been making repeated representations for protesting
such arbitrary action.
11. The petitioners had been working for last more than a decade
continuously and to the satisfaction of all the respondents-authorities. The State
Government vide Memo No. 522 dated 04.03.2025 directed to extend the
benefits of medical allowance and dearness allowance, pay revision, etc to all
contractual employees who were recruited as per Memo No. 4569 dated
05.07.2022, but despite being eligible, the said benefits were never extended to
the petitioners.
12. In this background, the petitioners had claimed for their
regularization. The petitioners have brought on record various instances where
other ad-hoc/contractual employees of other departments have been
regularized.
Case of the Respondents
13. The respondents appeared and filed a detailed counter affidavit
wherein the respondents have mainly contended that the writ applications filed
by various contractual employees from different departments have already been
rejected by this Court and for the purpose thereof, the respondents have relied
8

2026:JHHC:31967
upon an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 602
of 2019 , whereby this Court declined to pass an order of regularization with
respect to the persons who were appointed on contractual basis against the posts
of Accountant-cum-Computer Operator and Science Teacher in Kasturba
Gandhi Residential Girls’ School.
14. Similarly, the respondents had relied upon another order of this Court
being W.P. (S) No. 4232 of 2019 wherein the prayers for regularization made by
some Teachers/Assistant Teachers/Accountant-cum-Computer Operators,
Cook and chaukidars were regretted.
15. Additionally, the respondents have also filed a judgment of this
Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 3477 of 2002 and analogous cases wherein the
prayer for regularization made against the various posts was regretted by this
Hon’ble Court.
16. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, at the outset it is necessary
to observe that the law relating to regularization has undergone a sea change.
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Others
v. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 have held in
paragraphs 5 to 8 as under:-
“5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the
essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the
initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved
significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities
of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in
permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of
regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and
scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants'
promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional
Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any
indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration
of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their
employment status.
9

2026:JHHC:31967
6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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 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 Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .
7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is
reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42)
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa
[State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N.
Nanjundappa [R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and
B.N. Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 :
1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 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 the courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularisation 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
abovereferred 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 regularise 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 the courts or of tribunals and should further
ensure that regular recruitments 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 regularisation,
if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed
as per the constitutional scheme.”
(emphasis in original)
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants'
arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant
a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the
substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent
employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind
employment regulations.”

10

2026:JHHC:31967
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh v. State
of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 , have observed as under:-
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.
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 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
11

2026:JHHC:31967
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 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
Judgment.
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 Judgment.
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 Judgment.
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.”

12

2026:JHHC:31967
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India
[SLP (C) 5580 OF 2024] have observed as under:-
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 a scenario
demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod
5
Kumar v. Union of India , 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 judgment 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 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 judgment 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.
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
13

2026:JHHC:31967
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 State in the case of Vizcaino v.
7
Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector,
illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as
independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in
fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular
employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted
the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a
means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits.
This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status
and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in
rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-
term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade
long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution
are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently
dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their
roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
14

2026:JHHC:31967
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.”

19. Further, this Hon’ble Court in the case of Amita Kumari v. the Union
of India and Others [W.P. (S) No. 4283 of 2025) have observed as under:-
“34. The objection that there are no sanctioned posts stands on no better footing.
The absence of sanctioned posts is the direct result of the Respondent State’s own
inaction in the face of the Central Government’s communications dated
21.12.2011 and 02.07.2014, which specifically called upon the Respondent State
to create regular posts and to plan for sustaining the manpower under the VBD
Programme. The State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default,
particularly when, in the case of the MPWs(M), it found it possible to create
posts.
35. Nor can the label of 1-year contractual engagement be decisive. The
respondents’ own case is that contracts are renewed only where the need persists.
The uninterrupted renewal of the petitioners’ contracts for 14 to 18 years is, by
the respondents’ own test, proof that the need is permanent. Similarly, the
stipulation in the appointment letters that no claim to regular appointment would
be entertained cannot override the constitutional guarantee of equality, more so
when the employee had no real choice but to accept the terms offered by the State.
36. The State itself recognised the perennial nature of the work under the VBD
Programme by creating posts for the MPWs(M); it represented to this Court on
affidavit that the absorption of the petitioners at par with MPWs(M) was under
active consideration; and it has, for over eight years since, neither taken a
decision, nor offered any reason for its inaction.
15

2026:JHHC:31967
In Dharam Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1735, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in comparable circumstances,
directed the creation of supernumerary posts for the regularisation of long-
serving workers. Remitting the matter yet again for consideration would, in these
circumstances, serve no purpose and would only prolong the uncertainty which
the petitioners have endured for decades.”

20. Apparently, the petitioners possess the qualification of Graduate,
B.Ed., Post Graduate B.Ed., and all of the petitioners have also passed
Jharkhand Teachers’ Edibility Test. The petitioners were appointed pursuant to
applications invited through open advertisement and after due selection. The
petitioners have admittedly continued in service for more than a decade and
some of the petitioners have completed more than two decades of continuous
service.
The nature of duty which the petitioners are discharging is to ensure
that the quality of education is maintained at the Cluster and Block Level by
continuously maintaining and evaluating the manner in which education is
being imparted, its impact on students and finding/suggesting steps for
betterment of education at elementary level.
Such duties cannot be said to be temporary in nature, rather, it is an
ongoing process and perennial in nature.
21. In this background, considering the totality of the circumstances, this
Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to regularization as Cluster
Resource Person and Block Resource Person, as the case may be, and as the
said work was previously being taken by the States by deputing Upper Primary
School Teachers from the Government Schools, petitioners would be at least
entitled to the pay scales prescribed for such Upper Primary School Teachers
who previously were being discharging such duties before appointment of
16

2026:JHHC:31967
separate Cluster Resource Person/Block Resource Person by way of open
advertisement.
22. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
23. The concerned respondents are directed to issue necessary order for
regularization of these petitioners as early as possible, preferably within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
24. Pending I.As if any also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:02 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
3.11.2026




17