THE STATE OF KARNATAKABY UNDER SECRETARYDEPT OF HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE SERVICESVIDHANA BENGALU vs . SRI GIRISH K.,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETITION NO.102526 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
SERVICES, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF HEATH FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
ANANDA RAO, CIRCLE, BENGALUR – 560 009.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FAMILY
WELFARE SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY – 583 101.
5. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
DEPARTMNT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFAR SERVICE,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
6. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER,
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY – 583 101.
7. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
GENERAL HOSPITAL KUDLGI, SIRGUPPA,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI – 583 224, DIST: BELLARY.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
8. THE CHIEF OFFICERF MEDICAL OFFICER,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
BELLARY DISTRCT – 583 135.
9. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
10. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
11. THE MEMBERS SECRETARY
SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE AND
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI. GIRISH K., S/O. KENCHAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
2. SMT. MANJAMMA N. W/O. JAGADEESH M.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
3. KUMARI P. RESHMA B., D/O. P. BAJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
4. KUMARI SUJATHA D/O. AMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
5. KUMARI G. SHIVAKUMARI D/O. G. NAGARATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
6. SMT. GOWRAMMA A., D/O. ERAPPA A.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
7. SRI H.THIPPERUDRASWAMY S/O. H. HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
8. SRI SIDDALINGESHA R/O. RUDRAIAH HIREMATH, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
100 BED HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
9. SRI A. BASAPPA S/O. A.VEERESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF
NURSE,GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
10. SMT. D. KAMALAKSHAMMA D/O. DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YERS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
11. SMT. Y.GEETHA D/O. YANNAJERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
12. SMT. H.SUNITHA D/O. ERANNA H.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
13. SMT. D. DANAMMA D/O. D.PRABHUDAS,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 121.
14. SRI G.D.ADARSHA GOWDA S/O. R. DEVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
15. SMT. SAROJA H., W/O. SRI. BASAVARAJ A.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
16. SRI H.RAMANJINEYA S/O. HOANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE, GENERAL HOSPITAL,
KUDLIGI, BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
17. SRI. SANGAPPA A. APAROJI
S/O. AMARAPPA APAROJI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
18. KUMARI ASHA H.S.,D/O. SATHYANARAYANA K.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
19. SMT. KOTRAMMA D. D/O. DHAMLANAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 135.
20. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR T., S/O. THIMMABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
21. KUMARI HULIGEMMA D/O. NANANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
22. KUMARI JYOTHI M., D/O. A.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
23. SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. HARTHIVEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
24. SRI R.DINESH S/O. RANGAPPA D.DURGAVAAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, SONDUR,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 119.
25. KUMARI SUJATHA KOTEKKAL D/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
26. SRI N.KRISHNA S/O. THIPPESWAMY NADUMANI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS STAFF NURSE,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 212.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7, R9, R10 TO R12,
R14 TO R16, R18 TO R24, R25, R26;
R8, R13, R17 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10767-
10792 OF 2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER/S
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
The State stands before us calling in question an order of
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as “Tribunal” for short) dated 10.06.2021 in
Application Nos.10767-10792 of 2019, whereby the claims of
the respondents herein comes to be allowed by directing
consideration of the representations for regularization, bearing
in mind the observations made in the course of the order of the
Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
Smt. Girija S. Hiremath appearing for the appellants and the
learned counsel Sri. Parashuram R. Hattarakihal for
respondents.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. On 27.04.2006 the Deputy Commissioners of the
respective Districts in the State were directed to fill all those
posts of staff nurses in the teeth of the fact that the District
Hospitals were converted into the research institutes. This led
to issuance of a notification on 02.09.2006 for calling for
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
applications from eligible candidates for the purpose of
appointment of staff nurses inter alia . The respondents herein
were all selected pursuant to the aforesaid selection process
against the sanctioned vacant posts, but were continued on
contract basis on the score that they were appointed on
contract basis prior to the issuance of the notification calling for
applications as noted herein above. Time ticks off. The
respondents then approach the Tribunal by filing application
seeking their regularization services in Application Nos.67857-
67861 of 2010. The second round of litigation emerges when
the endorsements were issued to the respondents that they
would not be entitled to even equal pay for equal work contrary
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
1
Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and Others and also non-
consideration of their representation for regularization of the
services. The Tribunal by the impugned order allows both the
claims directs consideration of the representation for
regularization, till such time directs payment of equal pay for
equal work in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and Others .
1
(2017) 1 SCC 148
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
4. The learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath would
take this Court through the documents appended to the Appeal
Memorandum to buttress the submission that the appointment
of these petitioners were not against sanctioned vacant posts
or they have not completed 10 years of service when they
initially registered their claim for regularization. Therefore, the
order of the Tribunal must be set at nought or even reduced to
the extent of consideration of the representation, a
consideration simpliciter.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submit that today the petition remains only insofar as
respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6, 9, 12 and 25. Rest of the
respondents are all appointed pursuant to subsequent
recruitment processes against regular posts and therefore the
petition would survive only against these petitioners.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that all
the nuances that are necessary for a direct recruitment were all
followed by the respondent at the time when these respondents
were appointed, but were continued on contract basis and their
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
claim for regularization was denied from time to time even
equal pay for equal work. Therefore, there is no warrant of
interference with the order of the Tribunal.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel.
8. The facts narrated hereinabove are beyond dispute
as they are all a matter of record. The notification being issued
by the petitioner seeking appointment of staff nurses to
sanctioned vacant posts is a matter of record. The respondents
participating in the selection process and them being continued
on contract basis notwithstanding them being found eligible to
be appointed on regular basis is again a matter of record. In
the jugglery of the claim for the petitioner for regularization or
equal pay for equal work 20 years passed by today and in
2026, the learned HCGP wants to contend that the posts were
not sanctioned in the year 2006 but are continued for 20 years
in those posts while the facts would speak otherwise or records
would speak otherwise.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
9. We iterate that the respondents were appointed
against sanctioned vacant posts 20 years ago after participating
in a full blown selection process but were continued as staff
nurses on contract basis. The issue need not detain this Court
for long or delve deep into the matter.
10. The Apex in the case of Sukhendu
Court
2
Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam , while following the earlier
judgments in the cases of Jaggo v. Union of India reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 ; Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and
Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1735, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
54. There is no dispute that the appellants had been
engaged as Work Charged/Muster Roll workers much prior
st
to 1 April, 1993 and had continuously discharged their
duties over a prolonged period of time. Their position is, in
no manner, distinguishable from those Work
Charged/Muster Roll workers whose services were
nd
regularized pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 22
July, 2005. The appellants were left out from the exercise
of regularization owing to inadvertent mistakes, clerical
errors and administrative discrepancies on the part of the
State. Hence, the appellants cannot be faulted for denial of
the benefits flowing from the aforesaid Cabinet decision
under which nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers were
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 909
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
regularized. The core question, therefore, which arises
for consideration is whether, in the aforesaid
circumstances, the appellants can be denied the
benefit of regularization solely on the ground that
they were not appointed against sanctioned posts
and that the decision in Umadevi (supra) prohibits
such regularization.
55. The key reason assigned by the Division
Bench in overturning the judgment of the learned
Single Judge was that the employees were not
appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts and,
therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of the
exception carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi
(supra). The Division Bench held that regularization
is permissible only in cases of irregular (and not
illegal) appointments of duly qualified persons
working against sanctioned vacant posts for ten
years or more without the protection of Court orders.
Since, according to the State, none of the
respondents therein were appointed against
sanctioned posts, the benefit of the one-time
measure contemplated in Umadevi (supra), and
explained in M.L. Kesari (supra), was held to be
inapplicable to them.
56. Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) would be
relevant for consideration of the lis and the same is
reproduced hereinbelow:—
“ 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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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 regularization, if
any already made, but not subjudice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should
be no further bypassing of the constitutional
requirement and regularizing or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.”
(Emphasis supplied)
57. The one-time exception as carved out in
paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) was further elaborated
and explained in M.L. Kesari (supra) wherein this Court
observed as follows:—
“9. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to
be understood in its proper perspective. This
would normally mean that after the decision
in Umadevi, each department or each
instrumentality should undertake a one-time
exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-
wage or ad hoc employees who have been
working for more than ten years without the
intervention of Courts and tribunals and
subject them to a process verification as to
whether they are working against vacant
posts and possess the requisite qualification
for the post and if so, regularize their
services.
10. 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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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.
11. The object behind the said direction in
para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. 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 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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
58. What can be deduced from paragraph 53 of
Umadevi (supra), as clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra),
is that the Union of India and the State Governments
were directed to undertake a one-time exercise to
regularize employees who had worked for ten years
or more in duly sanctioned posts, without the
protection of Court or tribunal orders. This direction
was to be implemented after the decision in Umadevi
th
(supra), i.e. , after 10 April, 2006. The exception
carved out in paragraph 53 was therefore intended to
operate prospectively and within the framework laid
down therein.
59. In our considered view, the reliance placed by
the Division Bench on Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari
(supra) was misplaced in the facts of the present case.
Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) carved out a
limited exception for those employees who had
worked for more than ten years in duly sanctioned
posts without the protection of Court orders.
However, the appellants were not seeking
regularization on the basis of that one-time
exception. Their claim is rooted in the Cabinet
nd
decision dated 22 July, 2005, by which the State
consciously decided to regularize the services of
Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior
st
to 1 April, 1993, and pursuant to which nearly
30,000 similarly situated employees were in fact
regularized by creation of posts. The appellants
claimed parity with that very class and sought equal
treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. The
issue, therefore, is not one of invoking the limited
exception carved out in Umadevi (supra), but of
ensuring that employees who stand on the same
footing are treated alike.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
60. It is a settled principle that equals must be
treated equally, and if persons similarly placed are
treated differently without a rational basis, it would
amount to a violation of Article 14 of the
11
Constitution . If two sets of employees stand on the
same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature
of duties, length of service and eligibility under a
declared policy, the State cannot extend a benefit to
one large group and deny it to the smaller group
without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality
does not allow selective or partial implementation of
a policy. Once a policy decision is taken to benefit a
defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who
satisfy the prescribed conditions.
61. In the present case, the State itself framed
a policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and
st
Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1 April, 1993.
Pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision,
approximately 30,000 workers were regularized. The
appellants belong to that very category. They were
engaged prior to the cut-off date and have rendered
long and continuous service in the same manner as
those who were regularized. There is no
distinguishing feature shown which separates them
from the beneficiaries of the 2005 decision. Once the
State chose to regularize such a large body of
workers forming one identifiable class, it was under a
constitutional obligation to treat all eligible members
of that class alike. The remaining workers who were
left out, though otherwise eligible, cannot be
excluded and denied the same benefit. It is crucial to
note that the exclusion of the appellants from being
granted the benefit of the 2005 decision is not
attributable to the appellants but is rather predicated
in the actions of the State machinery which, on
account of inadvertent errors or clerical mistakes, did
not include the appellants in the list of beneficiary
covered by the said government decision.
62. Recently, in Pawan Kumar v. Union of
12
India this Court considered a similar situation
wherein certain employees had been regularized but
others, though similarly placed, were left out. This
Court held that such differential treatment was
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
discriminatory and accordingly granted the same
relief to the excluded employees.
63. Once the State confers a benefit upon a
particular class, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same
benefit to others who are identically situated.
Applying the principle in the present case, the State,
having regularized nearly 30,000 workers under its
own policy decision, could not refuse to regularize
the remaining eligible workers who stood on the
same footing. To do so amounts to treating equals
unequally, which is impermissible under Article 14 of
the Constitution.
64. The present appeals could have been allowed on
the basis of discussion made hereinabove, as the unequal
and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellants is
apparent on the face of the record. However, the facts and
circumstances of the present case necessitate certain
observations regarding the manner in which the State has
handled the issue of regularization. The way in which
assurances were extended, policies were formulated and
partially implemented, and thereafter altered, warrants
closer scrutiny so as to ensure adherence to the standards
of fairness and accountability expected of the State and its
instrumentalities.
65. It is not in dispute that nearly 30,000 workers
were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated
nd
22 July, 2005. However, as noted above, due to
administrative lapses and clerical omissions on the part of
the State, several eligible workers, including the appellants,
were left out of the exercise. This led to the filing of
multiple writ petitions before the High Court. In those
proceedings, particularly in Ramani Deka (supra) and
connected matters, the State, through affidavits sworn by
the Chief Secretary and other senior officers, expressly
acknowledged that a substantial number of workers
st
engaged prior to 1 April, 1993 had been left out in the
exercise of regularization. The Court was informed that the
Government was actively considering their cases and that
an appropriate policy would be framed within a stipulated
period, with the outcome likely to be in favour of such
workers. Acting upon these categorical representations, the
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
High Court passed an order requiring the State to take
consequential steps.
66. In this backdrop, the subsequent filing of a
Miscellaneous Application seeking nod from the High Court
to implement the very policy under consideration, on the
ground that the law laid down in Umadevi (supra) created a
legal embargo on such regularization, appears wholly
unwarranted. It is not as though the State was
unaware of the decision in Umadevi (supra) at the
time it furnished undertakings before the High Court.
The judgment in Umadevi (supra) had already been
delivered in April 2006. The undertakings given by
the State before the High Court, acknowledging the
existence of a large number of left-out workers and
committing to frame a policy for their regularization,
were furnished much thereafter. This clearly
indicates that the State was fully conscious of the
decision in Umadevi (supra) and its implications at
the time it made those representations. If the State
genuinely apprehended any legal impediment arising
from Umadevi (supra), it ought to have raised such
concerns at the first instance. Instead, it continued to
assure the Court that a policy for regularization of
left-out workers was under active consideration. It
was only in 2012 that the State sought leave of the
Court, citing Umadevi (supra) as a hurdle. The 2012
O.M. appears to have been designed in a manner that
effectively defeats and dilutes the very object and
nd
purpose of the Cabinet decision dated 22 July,
2005. Once the Cabinet had taken a considered
decision and acted upon it for a large number of
employees, it was incumbent upon the State to act in
furtherance thereof fully, and not to introduce
measures that undermine or circumvent it. The State
which is expected to act as a model employer cannot
be permitted to resile from, or seek shelter against
its own decisions through subsequent executive
decisions. To allow such a course would be contrary
to principles of administrative fairness, consistency,
and good governance.
67. The conduct of the State must also be
examined in light of its status as a model employer.
The State is under a higher constitutional obligation
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
to ensure that its actions are just, reasonable and
non-arbitrary. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath v.
13
State of Jharkhand reiterated that the State, as a
model employer, bears a heightened constitutional
obligation in the discharge of its functions. It must
act with probity, fairness and candour, and cannot
cloud the disputes involving its employees under
narrow technical grounds divorced from their broader
constitutional context. A model employer is expected
to uphold the dignity of its employees more so who
are at the lowest pedestal of the hierarchy and to
avoid exploiting their vulnerability or precarious
position. This obligation flows directly from the
Constitution and is not discretionary. Constantly
giving undertakings before a constitutional Court and
thereafter resiling from them does not comport with
the standards expected of a model employer. An
undertaking recorded by a Court is not a casual
statement, but is a solemn representation on the
basis of which judicial orders are passed. The State
cannot approbate and reprobate. It cannot, on the
one hand, secure time and indulgence from the Court
on the assurance that a policy will be implemented
and, on the other, avoid implementation by citing
precedents that were already in existence at the time
the undertakings were furnished.
68. The repeated undertakings given by the
State before the High Court, coupled with the earlier
implementation of the Cabinet decision in favour of
nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, clearly gave
rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of the
appellants who were deprived of the benefits of the
policy. In the maze of administrative deficiencies,
they were entitled to expect that the policy decision
would be implemented in a fair, complete and non-
discriminatory manner, and that their cases would
also be considered as part of the same exercise.
Though legitimate expectation does not create a
vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of
fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from Article
14 of the Constitution.
69. A three-judge bench of this Court in National
14
Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the
following terms:—
“The doctrine of “legitimate expectation” has
its genesis in the field of administrative law. The
Government and its departments, in
administering the affairs of the country, are
expected to honour their statements of policy
or intention and treat the citizens with full
personal consideration without any iota of
abuse of discretion. The policy statements
cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied
selectively. Unfairness in the form of
unreasonableness is akin to violation of
natural justice. It was in this context that the
doctrine of “legitimate expectation” was
evolved which has today become a source of
substantive as well as procedural rights. But
claims based on “legitimate expectation” have been
held to require reliance on representations and
resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way
as claims based on promissory estoppel.”
(Emphasis supplied)
70. The principle laid down in the aforesaid
decision applies to the present case as well. The
State’s own policy decision and subsequent
undertakings before the High Court constituted clear
representations that the cases of the left-out workers
would be duly considered. The State could not
thereafter retract from its earlier position in a
selective or inconsistent manner.
71. Even otherwise, as correctly observed by
the learned Single Judge, there was no requirement
for the State to seek permission of the Court to
implement its own policy decision. The Full Bench in
Jitendra Kalita (supra) had itself observed that any
solution to the issue of regularization must be
undertaken by the State as a policy measure.
Regularization, where permissible in law, is an
executive function. It falls within the domain of
policy and administration. Courts do not grant prior
approval to executive decisions. The role of the Court
is confined to judicial review, that is, to examine
whether a policy or action is constitutionally valid,
fair and reasonable. It is not for the Court to
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
authorise the executive to exercise powers which
already vest in it.
72. We find merit in the observation of the
learned Single Judge that seeking permission in the
manner done by the State amounted, in effect, to a
surrender of its executive authority. The executive
cannot abdicate its responsibility by placing the
burden upon the Court to approve or disapprove the
implementation of its own policy. Once a Cabinet
decision had been taken and implemented in major
proportions, and once undertakings had been given
before a constitutional Court, the State was expected
to act in furtherance of its intent expressly declared
in the policy, subject of course to constitutional
confines. The course adopted by the State, in the
facts of the present case, was neither necessary nor
justified.
73. As regards the contention of Shri Gupta that
after the decision in Umadevi (supra) no
regularization can be effected in respect of
employees who were not appointed against duly
sanctioned posts, we are unable to accept such a
sweeping proposition in the facts of the present case.
The submission proceeds on the premise that
Umadevi (supra) lays down an absolute and inflexible
embargo against all forms of regularization
irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. Such
an interpretation, in our considered view, does not
reflect the true scope and ratio of the decision.
74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the
tendency of the State to take mechanical shelter
under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to employees
who had been performing work of a permanent and
essential nature for long years. This Court observed as
follows:—
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time
workers,” the appellants performed these essential
tasks on a daily and continuous basis over
extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to
nearly two decades. Their engagement was not
sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it
was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents
did not engage any other personnel for these
tasks during the appellants' tenure,
underscoring the indispensable nature of their
work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these
were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature
of the work performed by the appellants was
perennial and fundamental to the functioning
of the offices. The recurring nature of these
duties necessitates their classification as
regular posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these
same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’
termination demonstrates the inherent need for
these services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with
another, further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that
the appellants' roles were not only essential
but also indistinguishable from those of
regular employees. Their sustained
contributions over extended periods, coupled
with absence of any adverse record, warrant
equitable treatment and regularization of
their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by
their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest
injustice and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the
decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend
to penalize employees who have rendered
long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. The said judgment 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
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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 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.
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 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
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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 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
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
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. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra) while
relying on the judgment of Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra),
and Dharam Singh (supra) observed as follows:—
“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
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India , this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and
evolved the test of examining whether the
duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7 In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam , and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India , this Court cautioned
against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi
(supra) to deny regularization to temporary
employees in the absence of statutory rules. It
was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be
employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative
engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment . The Court
further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a
distinction between appointments that are “illegal”
and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter
being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of
the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. , 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.
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 .”
(Emphasis supplied)
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
76. What emerges from the principles
enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is that the State
cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to
deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have served it for long years. The consistent thread
running through these judgments is that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to
justify prolonged and continued engagements of a
temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the
employees have been discharging essential and
recurring functions of the State. The Court has
repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept
in view, that long and continuous service is a
relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model
employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act
with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The
practice of retaining employees for decades under
deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously
extracting regular work integral to the
administration, has been disapproved consistently.
77. Applying these principles to the present
case, it is evident that engaging workers on muster
rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State
which continued for prolonged period of time. The
appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal
purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have
rendered continuous service for decades in
departments performing regular governmental
functions. The State itself acknowledged the
magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet policy
to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon
it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such
circumstances, to deny consideration to the fraction
of remaining eligible workers including the
appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of
Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of
fairness and non-arbitrariness that this Court has
consistently upheld.
78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
accept the contention of the State that the appellants
cannot be granted regularization on the ground that
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
they were not initially appointed against duly
sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the
st
appellants prior to 1 April, 1993, utilised their
services continuously for decades, and having itself
framed and implemented a Cabinet policy
regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers,
cannot now exclude the appellants by taking shelter
behind a rigid or technical reading of Umadevi
(supra). In absence of any cogent distinction or
reasoned decision justifying such exclusion, the
action of the State is manifestly arbitrary. It is
inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model
employer and does not withstand scrutiny under
Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The said judgment was rendered on 21-05-2026.
10.1. Subsequent to the said judgment, the Apex Court,
3
again, in the case of Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India , while
considering whether a temporary status casual labourer would
be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation in the
absence of a formal order of regularization, observes as
follows:
“…. …. ….
32. Having heard the counsel for both the parties
and on perusal of pleadings and material on record, the
issue that arises for consideration can be carved out
as follows:
‘Whether temporary status casual labourer, in
the absence of a formal order of regularisation,
would be entitled to pensionary benefits on
superannuation or not?’
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
33. Before adverting to the above question and
interpreting the Scheme involved in the present factual
matrix, we find it apposite to delineate the legal framework
governing the rights of casual and temporary employees.
This Court has over the years developed jurisprudence
concerning rights of casual labourers and temporary
employees which needs to be adverted to.
34. In Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), this Court
held that upon conferment of temporary status and
completion of three years of continuous service,
casual labourers are to be treated at par with Group
‘D’ employees and would thereby be entitled to such
benefits admissible to regular employees. The Court
observed that there could be no justification in
withholding benefits from such employees and
emphasised the obligation of the State, as a model
employer, to act in consonance with the Directive
Principles of State Policy as provided in the
Constitution of India.
35. Further, in Vinod Kumar (supra), this Court
recognised that where employees have rendered
continuous service, performing duties
indistinguishable from those discharged by regular
employees, the distinction between temporary and
permanent employment becomes substantively
illusory and the failure to recognise the true nature of
such service would be contrary to the principles of
equity and fairness.
36. In Jaggo (supra), this Court reiterated that
employees labelled as temporary or part-time, but
who have in fact rendered continuous and essential
service over long periods, cannot be denied benefits
available to regular employees merely on account of
nomenclature. The Court held that such engagement
is neither sporadic nor casual, but is in the nature of
regular employment, thereby necessitating extension
of all corresponding service benefits.
37. In this context, the principle laid down by
this Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of
India 6 also assumes significance, wherein this Court
held that where an employee has rendered long years
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
of service and there is no justifiable reason for not
conferring permanent status, it would be a travesty
of justice to deny pensionary benefits merely on the
ground of absence of formal regularisation, and such
an employee is liable to be treated as having attained
permanent status.
38. Perusal of the above decisions of this Court
establish a consistent judicial approach that long-
serving employees, whether casual or temporary,
particularly those who have been conferred a
recognised status and extended benefits akin to
regular employees, cannot be denied corresponding
benefits including social security and pensionary
benefits. The emphasis must be on ensuring that the
State does not retain such employees in a precarious
condition while extracting services identical to those
performed by regular employees.
39. This approach is firmly rooted in the
constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any
classification, resulting in denial of any benefits to a
class of employees who are otherwise similarly
situated in terms of duties and responsibilities would
fall foul of constitutional ethos. Further, the Directive
Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39
and 43, cast a positive obligation upon the State to
ensure social and economic justice, fair conditions of
work, and a decent standard of life for labourers.
Pension, in this context, is not a gratuitous benefit
but a facet of social welfare and economic justice.
40. The concept of the State as a model
employer, read in conjunction with the aforesaid
constitutional mandate, reinforces the obligation
upon the State to extend fair and equitable treatment
to employees who have rendered long and
continuous service and that the State cannot extract
services of a permanent nature while denying
corresponding benefits.
41. At this stage, it is also necessary to note
that pension is not a bounty but a vested and
enforceable constitutional right. This Court in State of
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava 7 has
categorically held that pension is a hard-earned
benefit amassed by an employee by virtue of long
and continuous service and is in the nature of
“property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
42. Once pension is recognised as a
constitutional right in the nature of property, it
cannot be taken away except by authority of law. A
statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on
account of inaction of the employer, and such
inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional right.
It is in the light of this above discussed judicial
approach of this Court over a period of time, the
provisions of the Scheme and the subsequent
applicable circulars must be read, understood and
interpreted.
43. Let us, now, turn to the Scheme that is
applicable to the facts of the present case. The principles
emanating from Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), as
discussed hereinabove, are directly incorporated in
formation of the said Scheme. The relevant portion of
the decision is reproduced herein:
“… After rendering three years of
continuous service with temporary status, the
casual labourers shall be treated at par with
temporary Grade ‘D’ employees of the
Department of Posts and would thereby be
entitled to such benefits as are admissible to
Group ‘D’ employees on regular basis. ”
( emphasis supplied )
…. …. ….
55. It may be noted here that the Respondents
contend that temporary status casual labourers are
extended only the benefits that are specified in the Scheme
and Circular dated 30.11.1992 and are not entitled for
pensionary benefits. The said submission, in our considered
opinion, is misconceived. The expression “ benefits
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees such
as ”, made use of in the circular is of considerable
importance. The utilisation of the words “such as”
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
clearly indicates that the benefits enumerated therein
are illustrative and neither restrictive nor exhaustive.
This is also evident from the observations in Jagrit
Mazdoor Union (supra), which form basis of the
Scheme and Circular dated 30.11.1992, and provides
to extend all benefits as admissible to temporary
Group ‘D’ employees without any restrictions.
Therefore, the circular, as earlier observed, being a
beneficial legislation, cannot be read and understood
in a restrictive manner rather the correct approach of
interpretation would be to analyse it in the letter and
spirit of the legislative and administrative intent i.e.
to extend all benefits as are available to temporary
Group ‘D’ employees, to temporary status casual
labourers including pensionary benefits.
56. Before proceeding further, it becomes necessary
to deal with another contention advanced on behalf of the
Respondents that Clause 6 of the Scheme contemplates
counting of 50% service rendered under temporary status
towards retirement benefits only after formal regularisation
as Group ‘D’ employee and, therefore, in the absence of
regularisation, no pensionary benefits can be granted. The
said submission cannot be accepted in the manner sought
to be canvassed. Clause 6 cannot be read in isolation
divorced from the principles and purpose underlying the
Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. The judgment
of this Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra), which
forms the basis of the Scheme itself, categorically
directed that upon completion of three years of
continuous service under temporary status, casual
labourers ‘would thereby be entitled to benefits as
are admissible to Group ‘D’ employees on regular
basis’. The circular dated 30.11.1992 further clarifies
that such employees would be entitled to counting of
service for pension and terminal benefits as
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees.
57. The expression “after regularisation”
occurring in Clause 6 cannot be construed in a
narrow or restrictive manner so as to defeat the
beneficial object underlying the Scheme and must be
construed in its proper context. Clause 6 does not
create the pensionary entitlement itself, rather, it provides
an additional benefit by directing that half of the service
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
rendered under temporary status to be counted towards
grant of retirement benefits upon regularisation. The
pensionary entitlement of temporary status employees who
have completed the prescribed period of service flows
independently from the Scheme and the circular dated
30.11.1992. Clause 6 has to be interpreted harmoniously
and would construe to mean that in cases where formal
orders of regularisation are passed, 50% of the service
rendered under temporary status would be liable to be
counted towards retirement and pensionary benefits as
additional benefit apart from the benefits as available under
the rules which become applicable to a regular government
employee. Consequently, while Clause 6 may operate to
confer an additional advantage in cases where
regularisation takes place, the absence of formal
regularisation cannot be construed as extinguishing or
defeating the underlying entitlement to pensionary benefits.
58. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to
appreciate the distinction between different categories of
employees engaged within the service framework in the
Department of Posts. Broadly, four categories of employees
emerge from the statutory and administrative work
structure involved in the matter at hand, namely: (i) casual
labourers; (ii) temporary status casual labourers; (iii)
temporary Government employees; and (iv) regular
Government employees.
59. A casual labourer is merely a daily-rated worker
engaged on need basis and is entitled only to daily wages
for the period during which work is performed. Such
employee does not possess any structured service status
nor entitled to any service benefits ordinarily available to
Government employees.
60. The second category is that of a temporary
status casual labourer. The conferment of temporary status
not only initiates the process of integration of such
employee within a structured service framework but
extends certain service protections and benefits under the
Scheme. Nevertheless, such employee remains a temporary
status casual labourer and does not become a temporary
Government servant.
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
61. The third category is that of temporary
Government employees which are governed by the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, while the fourth category
comprises of regular Government employees governed by
the regular service rules applicable to permanent
Government servants.
62. It is to be noted that these aforesaid four
categories are not to be conflated as stages required to be
gone through to become a regular employee. It may be
pointed here that a casual labourer can directly become a
regular employee, if the Scheme provides for such
transition. A temporary Government employee, however,
definitely has two stages leading to permanent employment
i.e. initial appointment as temporary Government employee
and upon confirmation in service, his status is changed to
regular government employee.
63. For casual labourers, the Scheme provides for a
progression to regular employment. Initially the employee
enters service as a casual labourer. Thereafter, upon
satisfying the conditions prescribed under Clause 1 of the
Scheme, he/she is conferred temporary status and
continues under such status. Upon completion of the
prescribed conditions and subject to the applicable
Recruitment Rules, the employee becomes eligible for
regularisation against Group ‘D’ posts and ultimately
regularized and appointed as regular employee on
availability of vacancies.
64. The Scheme, in question, which provides for
grant of temporary status and regularisation for casual
labourers recognises four categories of employees
operating within the service structure, however, the
progression contemplated therein essentially unfolds in
three stages i.e. engagement as a casual labourer,
conferment and continuance of temporary status, and
eventual regularisation against Group ‘D’ posts.
65. It is apposite to highlight and emphasize
that although under the Scheme the temporary status
of casual labourers continues till his regularization in
service, however, on completion of the period of
three years, the service conditions are materially
changed as he is treated at par with temporary Group
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
‘D’ employees and extended all benefits that are
admissible to such employees.
66. The submission advanced on behalf of the
Respondents, that under the Scheme the employees
continue merely as temporary status casual labourers and
are distinct from the temporary Government servants, and
so would be the pensionary framework applicable. At first
blush, this contention appears to be correct to an extent.
However, on due consideration and deliberation of the
Scheme and its various clauses as a whole, the submission
aforesaid is found to be misplaced.
67. Although, it may be correct to say that
conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer
under the Scheme does not ipso facto transform such
employee into a temporary Government servant,
however, what falls short from the aforesaid
submission is that while the status of such employee
continues unchanged i.e., of a ‘temporary status
casual labourers’, the Scheme consciously and
specifically extends to such employees benefits
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees upon
completion of three years of continuous service
under temporary status. The service conditions, at
this juncture, of the casual temporary status
employee under the Scheme gets substantially
changed and carries all the benefits that are available
to temporary government employees. Therefore,
while the nomenclature and category of their service
status remain unchanged, the nature and extent of
benefits now available to them stand significantly
enlarged and aligned with those admissible to
temporary Government employees, blurring the
distinction between both categories as far as benefits
available to them are concerned. The distinction that
remains is one relating to nomenclature, formal
status and mode of regularisation but not to the
nature of extended benefits.
68. In other words, the Scheme nowhere
provides that upon completion of three years' service
under temporary status, the employee becomes a
temporary Government servant. What it specifically
provides is that such employee shall be treated at par
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for purposes of
extension of admissible benefits. The parity
contemplated under the Scheme is thus parity in
service benefits and not identity of service status.
69. Once the Scheme and the circular dated
30.11.1992 consciously extend benefits admissible to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees, the Respondents
cannot rely solely upon the nomenclature of
‘temporary status casual labourer’ to deny those very
benefits. The entire framework of the Scheme
proceeds upon extension of substantive service
benefits despite continuance of the original
nomenclature as temporary status casual labourer.
70. As already discussed hereinabove, the Scheme
and the circular dated 30.11.1992 extend to temporary
status employees all the benefits that are available to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Now, it becomes
necessary to examine the nature of pensionary benefits
available to such temporary Government employees under
the statutory framework.
71. The services of the temporary Government
servants are governed by the CCS (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965. It is not disputed that a temporary
Government servant is entitled to terminal benefits
including pension and on his death family pension. Rule
10(1-B) of the said Rules specifically provides that where a
temporary Government servant retires on attaining the age
of superannuation after rendering temporary service of not
less than ten years, such employee shall be entitled to
superannuation pension and retirement gratuity and on
death family pension in accordance with the provisions of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 10(1-B) is reproduced
herein:
“ 10. Terminal gratuity payable to
temporary Government servants.
xxx xxx xxx
(1-B) In the case of a temporary
Government servant who retires from service on
attaining the age of superannuation or on his being
declared to be permanently incapacitated for
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
further Government service by the appropriate
medical authority, after he has rendered temporary
service of not less than 10 years or who has sought
voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice
in writing on completion of 20 years' service,
provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not apply and in
accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-
(i) such a Government servant shall be
eligible for the grant of superannuation, invalid or
retiring pension, as the case may be, and
retirement gratuity; and
(ii) in the event of his death after
retirement, the members of his family shall be
eligible for the grant of family pension.
xxx xxx xxx”
72. As is apparent from the above, the statutory
framework governing temporary Government
employees itself accepts and acknowledges
entitlement of pensionary benefits and that the same
are not confined only to regular permanent
employees but are also available to temporary
Government servants upon completion of the
prescribed qualifying service. The CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965 thus constitute the statutory
source recognising pensionary entitlement of
temporary employees who have rendered specified
and continuous service.
73. The contention of the Respondents that the
Appellants were paid out of contingencies and
therefore stood excluded from the purview of the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 also cannot be
accepted in the particular facts of the present case.
Such exclusion may have relevance at the stage of
initial engagement as casual labourers. However, the
service conditions of the Appellants underwent a
substantial transformation upon extension of benefits
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The
continued reliance by the Respondents upon the
original mode of engagement, while simultaneously
extending pay parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave
benefits and other service entitlements akin to
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
temporary Group ‘D’ employees, would amount to
selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while
disregarding the other. Such an approach would
defeat the very object underlying the Scheme and the
circular dated 30.11.1992. Once parity in service
benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees is
consciously extended under the Scheme, pensionary
benefits flowing under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of
1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or
overlooking the statutory right.
74. The argument founded upon financial
burden is equally untenable. Pension is not a matter
of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of
the employer, but a deferred wage earned through
long years of service. As already noticed
hereinabove, this Court has recognised pension as a
constitutional right in the nature of property
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India as held in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Case
(supra) and it, therefore, cannot be denied on the
plea of financial burden.
75. From the above discussion what follows is
that when the statutory framework including CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in
conjunction with the Scheme and the circular dated
30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion which
emerges is that a casual labour, on being conferred
the temporary status, upon completion of three years
of continuous service as temporary status casual
labourer becomes entitled to benefits admissible to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees, which necessarily
includes pensionary benefits available under Rule
10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
subject, of course, to fulfilling the eligibility criteria
provided therein. This right is not dependent on
regularisation. What is conceived is conferring of
additional benefit of previous service under the
Scheme as would be available to an employee on
regularisation apart from the benefits conferred
under the rules becoming applicable on this now
acquired new status of a regular employee.
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
76. The question as framed in para 32 above stands
answered as follows:
‘A temporary status casual labourer would be
entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation
even in the absence of regularisation.’
77. What remains to be seen now is whether the
Appellants, in the cases before us, fulfil the eligibility
criteria under Rule 10 (1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965 so as to be entitled for pensionary benefits.
78. The service trajectory of Late Suraj Sah as per
the material placed on record, thus falls into three distinct
phases: (i) service as a casual labourer from 1972 till
29.11.1989; (ii) service as a temporary status casual
labourer from 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992; and (iii)
continuance as a temporary status casual labourer with
entitlement to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’
employees from 30.11.1992 till his superannuation on
31.12.2008.
79. From the above what emerges is that Late
Suraj Sah was initially engaged as a casual labourer
in the year 1972 and continued as such till
29.11.1989. During this period, he remained a daily-
rated worker and was not entitled to any service
benefits. Upon introduction of the Scheme, he was
conferred temporary status with effect from
29.11.1989. Thereafter, upon completion of three
years of continuous service under temporary status
on 30.11.1992, though his formal status continued to
remain that of a temporary status casual labourer, he
became entitled to the benefits admissible to
temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Thus, while his
nomenclature remained unchanged, his service
benefits thereafter stood aligned with those
admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees as per
the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. He
ultimately superannuated on 31.12.2008 while
continuing as a temporary status casual labourer. So
from 30.11.1992 till the date of superannuation i.e.
31.12.2008, the period being more than the minimum
of 10 years, he became entitled for benefits under
Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules,
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Thereby making him entitled to grant of
superannuation pension and other retirement
benefits as admissible under the above rules.
80. The service records of Bahuru Sahu and
Pitamber Jha would also reflect that they were, after
initial appointment as casual labourers, conferred
temporary status, w.e.f. 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992
and continued as temporary status casual labourers
till their date of superannuation 30.04.2008 and
31.10.2015 respectively. The period being in excess
of minimum qualifying service of ten years for
entitlement of pension, they would be entitled to
grant of all retiral benefits as available under the
Rules.
81. Insofar as the contention of the
Respondents with regard to delay and laches is
concerned, it is well settled that pensionary benefits
constitute a continuing cause of action, and a claim
for pension cannot be defeated solely on the ground
of delay. At the same time, the claim for arrears is
required to be balanced with settled principles
governing limitation. In the present case, nothing has
been brought on record to indicate that the
Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary
benefits prior to filing of the respective Original
Applications before the Tribunal. In such
circumstances, while the entitlement of the
Appellants to pensionary and consequential retiral
benefits stands established, the arrears thereof,
wherever applicable, shall remain confined to the
period of three years and two months preceding the
date of filing of the respective Original Applications
before the Tribunal, consistent with settled principles
governing service jurisprudence. ”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18376-DB
WP No. 102526 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020088332022
11. In the light of the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court, all noted supra, we do not find any warrant of
interference with the orders passed by the Tribunal.
12. Petition lacking merit, stands rejected .
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
RSH/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0