Kishun Prasad Prajapati vs M/o Communications

(Reserved on 06.10.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
th
This the 27 day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Original Application No. 442 of 2019

Kishun Prasad Prajapati, S/o Ram Gopal, Resident of Khaparaya

Mohalla, Village and Post Dakore District Jalaun.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta
Versus

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication
and I.T. Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra.
3. A.D.P.S., office of Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra.
4. Chief Post Master General, Lucknow, U.P.
5. S.S.P.O., Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
6. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Orai, Jalaun.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra
Along With
Original Application No. 236 of 2024

Kishun Prasad Prajapati, S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal, aged about 53
years, C.P. Chaukidar, Sub Post Office Dakor, District – Jalaun. R/o
– Village / Post Dakor, Khaparayapura, Tehsil – Orai, District Jalaun

PIN 285122.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta
Versus
RITU RAJ
SINGH
1 | P a g e

1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Communication
Department of Posts Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Public Grievances
and Pensions (Department of Personnel and training), New Delhi.
3. The Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle Lucknow.
4. The Post Master General Agra Region Agra.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices Jhansi Region Jhansi.
6. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office Orai, District – Jalaun,
PIN 285001.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant in
both the OAs and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondents in OA No 442 of 2019 and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan,
learned counsel for the respondents in OA No 236 of 2024, were
present at the time of hearing.
2. Through OA No 442 of 2019, the applicant has sought
following relief:
“a) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 12.03.2013 passed by respondent no 3 by which
the respondent no 3 has dismissed the representation filed by the
applicant.
b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents to award the applicant the temporary status as Chowkidar.
c) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents to initiate one time measure to regularize / conferred the
temporary status for the post of Chowkidar to the applicant in the view of
the judgment / order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in identical / similar matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others
vs. State of Jharkhand.
d) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant any other relief
which may be fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.
e) Award the cost of the application to the applicant.”
RITU RAJ
SINGH
2 | P a g e

Similarly, OA No 236 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant with
following relief:
“A. set aside the impugned rejection order no. B-1/Kishun Prasad
Prajapati/C P Chawkidar/2023 dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure no. A-1)
passed by respondent no 5.
B. issue order or direction to bring in regular establishment the
services of applicant with all service benefits at par with regular postal
employee under mandatory departmental Rule 154(a) of the Manual of
Appointments & Allowances.
C. Issue order or direction to treat the applicant’s services have
been brought in regular establishment according to judgment dated
23.12.2011 passed in writ petition (DB) Union of India and others vs
Shyam Lal Shukla by Hon’ble High Court Allahabad observing the rule
154(a) itself has used the word ‘regular employee’ without any reference
to formal order of regularization (Annexure No A-11)
D. to issue order or direction to the respondents to treat the
applicant temporary status employee after competing one year with at
least 240 days since his appointment dated 5.2.1994 for which process
has been started prior 01.09.1993 on the post of CP Chawkidar Dakor
shown at Sl No 8 in the OM dated 22.11.1991 (Annexure No A-1) and
after completing 3 years in temporary status has been granted benefits of
Gr. “D” and to be paid salary & benefits at par with regular Gr.”D”
employee according to identical judgment dated 29.11.1989 (Annexure
no A-10)
E. Issue direction to pay arrears of revise allowances since
01.01.2006 according to OMs dated 22.1.2015 & 17.8.2016 of the
respondent no 1 & 5.
F. Issue any other direction to which the Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
G. to award cost to the applicant.”
3. Both the OAs have been filed by the same applicant namely
Kishun Prasad Prajapati. OA No 442 of 2019 was filed with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 and to grant the
applicant temporary status and also to regularize the services of the
applicant. This OA was initially dismissed in default but vide order
dated 04.05.2026, it was restored to its original number. Connected
OA No 236 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant with the same
prayer. In both the OAs, pleadings are exchanged. Learned counsel
RITU RAJ
SINGH
3 | P a g e

for the applicant states that OA No 442 of 2019 had been filed by
another counsel. Since the applicant was not aware regarding the
order passed in this OA whereby the OA was dismissed in default,
OA No 236 of 2024 was filed by him mistakenly for the same relief.
Since both the OAs have been heard together, thus, without going
into any technicalities, clubbing both the OAs, issue raised by the
applicant is decided on merit. In these circumstances, both the OAs
are hereby decided by a common judgment without passing any order
of dismissal in the OA No 236 of 2024 being not maintainable.
4. Brief facts of the case as contained in both the OAs are that the
applicant was appointed vide letter dated 05.02.1994 on the post of
CP Chowkidar Dakor at Sub Post Office Dakor District Jalaun and in
compliance of the appointment letter, he joined the duty since
11.02.1994. Till now, the applicant is continuing on the said post.
Applicant had made representation for granting of temporary status
as well as regularization. Initially, one order was passed on
12.03.2013 by the respondents which is challenged in OA No 442 of
2019 and applicant’s representation was rejected on the ground that
applicant has been appointed w.e.f. 05.02.1994 after the cut-off date
i.e., 01.09.1993. It appears that fresh representation had been moved
by the applicant and it was decided vide order dated 12.12.2023
which is challenged in the OA No 236 of 2024 whereby the
applicant’s representation was rejected citing the same ground. The
applicant has relied upon Circulars / OMs dated 29.11.1991,
05.02.1992, 28.08.1993, 12.01.2015 & 12.08.2016, 27.04.1995 &
04.09.2013 and argued that he is continuously working on the said
post till today without any interruption and with unblemished record
and therefore his services need to be regularized along with all
consequential benefits. Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments and
Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs
Department especially provides that "selected categories of whole
time contingency paid staff, such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars,
Chobdars, Mails or Gardeners, Khalassis and such other categories
as are expected to work side by side with regular employees or with
RITU RAJ
SINGH
4 | P a g e

employees in work charged establishment, should, for the present, be
brought on to regular establishment of which they form adjuncts and
should be treated as "regular employees". Thus, applicant has

pleaded that impugned order challenged in both the OAs be quashed
and competent authority amongst the respondents be directed to grant
temporary status to the applicant and also to regualrise his services in
light of the provision contained in Rule 154(a) of Manual of
Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and
Telegraphs Department.
5. Counter(s) Affidavit have been filed by the respondents in both
the OAs taking similar ground as has been disclosed in the impugned
orders that the applicant was appointed after cut-off date on
01.09.1993 and hence temporary status cannot be allowed to him.
Respondents have also relied upon DG Post Communication dated
12.04.1991 and has further pleaded that casual labours recruited after
29.11.1989 and up to 01.09.1993 can only be considered for grant of
benefit under the scheme. Since applicant’s appointment is after the
cut-off date, he could not be granted temporary status nor can the
services be regularized. Thus, has pleaded that both the OAs be
dismissed on the ground that there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned orders.
6. Rejoinder(s) Affidavit have also been filed by the applicant in
both the OAs taking same grounds as have been narrated in the OA.
7. I have heard the rival parties and perused the records.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was appointed on the post of CP Chowkidar on the basis of
appointment letter issued by the competent authority and he has not
committed any fraud or deceit to obtain the same. He is qualified for
the said post and is continuously working on the said post. It is
further argued that although the post of CP Chowkidar is a dying
cadre post yet applicant’s prayer simply on this ground cannot be
turned down. He has also argued that if the ground taken by the
respondents that the applicant has been appointed after the cut-off
date i.e., 01.09.1993 is taken into consideration, then also, in view of
RITU RAJ
SINGH
5 | P a g e

the settled principle of law in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma
Devi reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806 and in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs M L Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9
Supreme Court Cases 247, as well as in view of the recent judgments
pronounced by different judicial forums across the country, the
applicant is entitled for temporary status as well as pensionary
benefits in light of provisions contained in para Rule 154(a) of
Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian
Posts and Telegraphs Department. Thus, argued to allow the OAs and
to grant the relief claimed by the applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that although the
applicant is continuously working till today but he was not allowed
temporary status because his appointment is after the cut-off date i.e.,
01.09.1993. Applicant cannot take the benefit of the provision of
Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers
of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department as only those casual
labours / CP Chowkidar who were appointed up to 29.11.1989 or up
to 01.09.1993 have been allowed said benefit of temporary status as
well as pension. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for
the respondents referred to the facts disclosed in the counter(s)
affidavit and further argued that OAs lack merit and are liable to be
dismissed.
10. Referring to the rejoinder filed in both the OAs, learned
counsel for the applicant argued that the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by several judicial pronouncements given by
different courts across the country and thus has placed reliance upon
following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 03.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of State of Karnataka And Others Vs M L
Kesari and Others reported in 2010 9 Supreme Court Cases 247.
ii. Judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 titled Narendra
Kumar Tiwari & Ors Vs The State of Jharkhand &Ors.
iii. Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs State of UP &
Another reported in 2025 INSC 998.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
6 | P a g e

iv. Judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Shripal&Anr Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
reported in 2025 INSC 144.
v. Judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India and Others
reported in 2024 INSC 1034
vi. Judgment dated 02.12.2025 passed by Allahabad Bench of
Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 1426
of 2018 titled Urmila Devi Vs Union of India and others.
11. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused
the records and case laws relied upon.
12. Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will
be useful to quote the relevant portion of case laws cited and relied
upon by the contesting parties.
i. Referring to the case of M L Kesari (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases
of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before
Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not
commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some
Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time
exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the
ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight.
In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered
in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to
be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise
was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month
period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time
exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had
put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer
had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did
not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit
of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their
cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time
exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled
to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is twofold.
First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of
continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts
or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are
considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to
ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the
practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long
periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they
RITU RAJ
SINGH
7 | P a g e

have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional
or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true
effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than
ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the
protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts,
possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for
regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such
exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi
or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will
not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for
regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time
measure.
9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the
decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not
considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months
of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of
respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only
further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila
Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a
general one-time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are
any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and
if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the
requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their
services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been
undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3
because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be
considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three
months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the
requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be
regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do
not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the
time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in
suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
ii. Referring to the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra),
learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon following
portion:
“8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore
two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the
future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been
irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand
continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the
decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was
all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required,
terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the
ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of
exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head.
This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.
9. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision
of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into
consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of
RITU RAJ
SINGH
8 | P a g e

Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence
only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th
April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of
indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be
perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
10. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have
considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from
the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise – the
interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has
eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the
process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an
irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation
Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they
have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the
Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service
rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should
be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation
like misconduct etc.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set
aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within
four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants.
13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
14. We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of
Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and
dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit
the process of regular appointments.”
iii. Referring to the case of Dharam Singh (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“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
RITU RAJ
SINGH
9 | P a g e

already paid under previous interim directions shall beso 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
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.”

iv. Referring to the case of Shripal (supra), learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“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 dateof 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.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
10 | P a g e

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.
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.”
v. Referring to the case of Jaggo (supra), learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“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,
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
RITU RAJ
SINGH
11 | P a g e

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.”
vi. Referring to the case of Urmila Devi (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“3. The brief facts of the case as has been narrated in original
application is that an advertisement was floated by the respondents for
the post of sweeper, In view thereof, the applicant applied on 30.7.1996 .
Thereafter, the applicant was appointed as Sweeper w.e.f. 01.12.1996
vide letter dated 27.01.1997 issued by Wing Commander, Commanding
M2 Air Force, Hospital. The appointment of the applicant was also
approved by HQ, Central Air Command, IAF Bamrauli, Allahabad – 12
vide letter dated 13.01.1997. After appointment, the applicant was
continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents. The applicant
applied for regulairsation of her services before the respondents, but no
heed was paid. However, all of sudden, the applicant was terminated
from services vide order dated 09.11.2017 though the same was served to
the applicant in November, 2017. Hence, this Original Application has
been preferred, challenging the order dated 09.11.2017.
-----
10. In view of the above discussions, impugned order of termination
dated 09.11.2017 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to
reinstate the applicant into services, and also to take a decision for
regularization of services of the applicant in light of the judgment of Apex
Court in case of Jaggo Vs Union of India &Ors. (supra), within a period
of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
RITU RAJ
SINGH
12 | P a g e

13. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant was
appointed on 05.02.1994 and has joined duty on 11.02.1994. He has
not been allowed temporary status as he was appointed after the cut-
off date i.e., 01.09.1993. Both the impugned orders challenged in the
OAs are of same nature.
14. The applicant is a Contingency Paid Chowkidar. Later the post
of C P Chowkidar has been declared as dying cadre and no fresh
appointment is being made in the said cadre. As has been disclosed
hereinabove, the applicant was appointed on 05.02.1994 and vide
Memo(s) dated 01.03.1993 and 04.02.1997, it was specifically
mentioned that no casual labour shall be engaged in future. All the
CP Chowkidars etc. who have been allowed temporary status on
29.11.1989 taking recourse to the provision of Rule 154(a) of Manual
of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and
Telegraphs Department have been allowed for pensionary benefits on
the basis of deemed regularization. Applicant has worked for more
than 240 days. In Uma Devi (supra) case, an exception was
propounded regarding regularization of irregularly appointed
employees who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned
post but not under covers of orders of the Court or of the Tribunal. In
light of the direction given by the Apex Court, almost all the
departments of Union of India, State Governments and their
instrumentalities have undergone the exercise for regularization of
such irregularly appointed employees. After the said exercise, when a
number of such type of irregularly appointed employees could not be
considered, some of them approached before the Tribunal and that
matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M L
Kesari (supra) wherein the Apex Court directed to undertake a further
exercise within six months as a general one time regularization
exercise to find out whether there are any daily wager / casual / ad
hoc employees serving the Zilla Panchayat and if so whether such
employees (including the respondents therein) fulfill the requirements
mentioned in para 3 of the Uma Devi (supra) case. If they fulfill the
same, their services have to be regularized. The present applicant
RITU RAJ
SINGH
13 | P a g e

although appointed in the year 1994 but was being paid the salary
attached to the CP Chowkidar regularly in each and every month and
he was also performing the duty of C P Chowkidar as was performed
by the erstwhile regular Chowkidar who have been given benefit of
Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers
of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. In the present case, if
the applicant was appointed in the year 1994 and is continuously
working till today on the same post with the same emoluments and
exercise had been done by the respondents in light of Uma Devi
(supra) case to regularize the services of the applicant, he would have
been regularized. If, in any situation, exercise could not be made by
the respondents, in light of the Uma Devi (supra) case, the
respondents ought to have undertaken the exercise in light of M L
Kesari (supra) case. If the aforesaid reason to regularize the services
of the applicant are not taken into consideration, then also, in light of
the direction given by the Apex Court, when the applicant is
continuously performing the duties of a regular employee and is also
receiving regular salary of the said post (for about 32 years), the case
of the applicant is liable to be allowed.
15. Thus, in view of the settled position of law which is evident
from the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant which have been quoted in the earlier paragraphs, I am of
the view that the applicant’s services may be treated as regularized.
He cannot be left in the hands of the respondents without any future
prospect and social security as he is performing perennial duties akin
to permanent post. Thus, when the post of C P Chowkidar is a dying
cadre post, although no specific direction can be given to the
respondents to regularize the services of the applicant on the post of
C P Chowkidar, yet, specific direction can be given to the
respondents to grant pensionary benefits at par with those C P
Chowkidars whose services were deemed to have been regularized
and pensionary benefits have been extended to them taking recourse
to the provision of Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments and
Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs
RITU RAJ
SINGH
14 | P a g e

Department. Thus, both the OAs are hereby allowed and impugned
orders are hereby quashed and set aside through this common
judgment. Respondents are hereby directed to extent the pensionary
benefits (Old Pension Scheme) to the applicant after he attains the
age of superannuation because in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there is no need to issue any direction to grant the applicant
temporary status.
16. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
17. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the

case file of OA No 236 of 2024 also.









(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)

(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
15 | P a g e