SRI. BASAVA PRAKASH CHANAL S/O CHIKKAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO.101654 OF 2023 (S-REG)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.101475 OF 2023 (S-RES)

IN WP NO.101654/2023
BETWEEN:

SRI. K. VISHWANATH S/O. HANUMATHE REDDY,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. ELECTRICIAN,
R/O. GOPALAGOWDA NAGAR, BELAGAL CROSS,
BELAGAL CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A.MALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER/MEDICAL EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
R/BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIMS CAMPUS,
BALLARI-583104.

Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
VIMS CAMPUS, BALLARI-583104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. J.M. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE TERMINATION LETTER

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

ND
PASSED BY 2 RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VIMS/C(4)/38/2022-23
DATED 17-02-2023 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECTION TO
ND
THE 2 RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE PETITIONER’S SERVICE BY
CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18-01-2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E, AND PROVIDE SERVICE BENEFITS, ARREARS
ACCORDING TO LAW. A(1) ISSUE WRIT OF NATURE OF NATURE
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING SA.VIMS KA
KOO/12/2023 DATED 08.02.2023 ISSUED RESPONDENT NO.02
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F. B) ISSUE ANY JUDICIAL ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR EQUITABLE JUSTICE IN
PETITIONER’S SERVICE BENEFITS/SALARY AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES.
C) ISSUE SUITABLE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR
PROVIDING REMEDY TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN WP NO.101475/2023
BETWEEN:

1. SRI. BASAVA PRAKASH CHANAL S/O. CHIKKAPPA,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. PHARMACIST,
NEAR OLD POLICE STATION, KURUGODU,
DIST. BALLARI-583114.

2. H. MABU SAHEB S/O. YOUSUF SAHIB,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PHARMACIST,
NADANG VILLAGE SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
DISTRICT. BALLARI-583114.

3. L. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY S/O. LATE LINGA REDDY,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PHARMACIST,
KOLAGALLU, POST. BALLARI-583104.

4. ANGADI MANJUNTH S/O. A. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
SRI. MANJUNATH NILAYA, SRI. M.V. NAGAR,
RD
3 CROSS, KAPPAGAL ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
BALLARI-583101.

5. K. PRASAD S/O. K. SHIVAPPA,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
TH
SRI LAXMI NILAYA, 5 CROSS, RAMANJINEYA NAGAR,
NEAR T.B. SANITORIUM, BALLARI-583104.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

6. SHAIKH KHAJA HUSSAIN S/O. SHAIKH MEHBOOB,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
TH
H.NO.75, NEW 6 BLOCK,
WARD NO.18, DAR LANE,
S.N. PETH, BALLARI-583101.

7. P.V. SHIJU S/O. GURU PRAKASH,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE,
ST
1 CROSS, GURU PARK, GURU COLONY,
CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.

8. M. RAJU S/O. M. ANAND,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
H.NO.293, BEHIND TIPPU SULTAN HOSTEL,
FORT, BALLARI-583101.

9. SMT. G. UMA D/O. MURALIDHAR,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
TH
H.NO.12, 11 WARD, PATTANASHETTY STREET,
NEAR JUMMA MASJID, GRAHAM ROAD,
BALLARI-583101.

10. K. KALINGAPPA S/O. K.NINGAPPA,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DOCUMENTALIST,
BANDIHALLI POST, COWL BAZAR NAGAR,
BALLARI-583104.

11. SMT. N. LALITHA W/O. K. VISHWANATH REDDY,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
PLOT NO. 62, BELAGAL ROAD, GOPAL GOWDA NAGAR,
BEHIND T.B. SANATORIUM, BALLARI-583104.

12. SRI. SYED IQBAL AHMED S/O. S.A. JABBAR SAB,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LAB TECHNICIAN,
WARD NO.24, DOOR NO.61/2, JAWARI STREET,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583102.

(ABOVE SAID PETITIONERS ARE WORKING
IN VIMS CAMPUS, BALLARI)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A.MALI, ADVOCATE)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER / MEDICAL EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIMS CAMPUS, BALLARI-583104.

3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
VIMS CAMPUS, BALLARI-583104.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. J.M. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE TERMINATION LETTER
ND
PASSED BY 2 RESPONDENT BEARING NO.VIMS/C(2)/355/2022-23
DATED 22.02.2023 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECTION TO
ND
THE 2 RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE PETITIONERS SERVICE BY
CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07-02-2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L AND PROVIDE SERVICE BENEFITS ARREARS
ACCORDING TO LAW. 1(1) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING SAN.VIMS KA
KOO/01/2022-23 DATED 17.02.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M. B) ISSUE ANY JUDICIAL ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR EQUITABLE JUSTICE IN
PETITIONERS SERVICE BENEFITS/SALARY AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES.
C) ISSUE SUITABLE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR
PROVIDING REMEDY TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER
These Writ Petitions are filed seeking following
reliefs:
W.P.No.101654/2023
a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
termination letter passed by second respondent
bearing No.VIMS/C(4)/38/2022-23 dated
17.02.2023 marked as Annexure-G and direction to
the second respondent to regularize petitioner’s
service by considering the representation dated
18.01.2023 vide Annexure-E, and provide service
benefits, arrears according to law.
a(1) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
endorsement bearing Sa.VIMS Ka Koo/12/2023
dated 08.02.2023 issued by respondent No.2
marked as Annexure-F.
b) Issue any judicial order or direction to the
respondents for equitable justice in petitioner’s
service benefits/ salary as regular employees.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

c) Issue suitable direction to the respondents for
providing remedy to the petitioners in the interest
of justice and equity.
W.P.No.101475/2023
a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
termination letter passed by second respondent
bearing No.VIMS/C(2)/355/2022-23 dated
22.02.2023 marked as Annexure-G and direction to
the second respondent to regularize petitioners
service by considering the representation dated
07.02.2023 vide Annexure-L, and provide service
benefits, arrears according to law.
a(1) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
endorsement bearing Sa.VIMS Ka Koo/01/2022-23
dated 17.02.2023 issued by respondent No.2
marked as Annexure-M.
b) Issue any judicial order or direction to the
respondents for equitable justice in petitioner’s
service benefits/ salary as regular employees.
c) Issue suitable direction to the respondents for
providing remedy to the petitioners in the interest
of justice and equity.
2. Facts germane to file the present Writ Petitions
are as under:

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

2.1 It is the case of the petitioners in
W.P.No.101475/2023 that they are all appointed as
Lab Technicians, Pharmacist and Staff Nurse with the
respondent since 2005 to 2007 respectively. So far
as petitioner in W.P.No.101654/2023, he was
appointed as Electrician in the year 2012.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioners in both the petitions
that, all of them have completed more than 10 years
of service with the respondent. Despite their services
is perennial in nature, they are not regularized. In
that regard, they made several representations.
However, the respondents have not considered their
case, which made the petitioners to approach this
Court in W.P.No.102974/2016 and
W.P.No.102359/2017.
2.3 The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions
supra, considered the case of the petitioners,
directed them to submit a representation to

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

respondent No.2 – Institute, seeking redressal of
their grievance and directed the Institute to consider
the same in accordance with law, by means of order
dated 01.02.2023 and 05.01.2023 respectively.
2.4 Pursuant to the direction issued by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, the petitioner in
W.P.No.101654/2023 made representation on
18.01.2023 and the petitioners in
W.P.No.101475/2023 made representations on
07.02.2023, along with the copy of the order passed
in the Writ Petitions supra.
2.5 The respondents thereafter, issued endorsement on
08.02.2023 and 17.02.2023 respectively, stating that
the petitioners have not complied the conditions
prescribed in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATANA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND
1
OTHERS . In that view of the matter, stated that the

1
(2006) 4 SCC 1

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

petitioners were not in service continuously for a
period of 10 years and their request for
regularization cannot be considered.
2.6 Thereafter, on 17.02.2023 and 22.02.2023,
terminated the petitioners from service respectively.
Aggrieved by the action on the part of the
respondent Institute, the petitioners are before this
Court in these petitions, seeking the reliefs supra.
3. Heard, Sri.Ramachandra A.Mali, leanred counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for respondents 2 and 3, in both the petitions.
4. Sri.Ramachandra A.Mali, with all vehemence
submits that the contention of respondent No.2 that the
petitioners have not served continuously for a period of 10
years is false, for the reason that, they are deliberately
breaking the service, however continuing the petitioners

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

by issuing fresh appointment orders. This clearly shows
that the petitioners’ are continued in service with
respondent. Learned counsel further submits that, if there
is no need of the petitioners’ service, there is no occasion
for the respondents to continue the petitioners in service
since 2005 to 2007 and 2012 respectively, till this date. To
buttress his argument, learned counsel placed reliance on
the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of SMT.GEETA RAMAPPA TERDAL VS.
COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, DANDELI
2
AND OTHERS .
5. In contrast, Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondents Institute submits that the
petitioners have not complied the conditions prescribed in
the case of UMADEVI supra, as such the respondent
Institute is justified in issuing the Endorsement and
Termination Letters and sought to dismiss the Writ
Petitions.

2
W.A.No.100680/2025, disposed of on 16.10.2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

6. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the
entire Writ Petition paper, in both the petitions.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
GEETA RAMAPPA TERDAL supra, considering all the
latest laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
including SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE VS. STATE OF
3
ASSAM , allowed the Writ Appeal and passed an order
that the appellant shall be entitled to regularization of her
services in the cadre in which she was working at the time
of attaining the age of superannuation, with effect from
the date on which she completed 10 years of service and
also accorded all consequential benefits. The Judgment
supra read as under:
“2. Facts, adumbrated, are as follows:
2.1. The appellant, now aged 64 years, presents
before this Court a rather disquieting tale of a public
servant who entered the portals of Government service
in the year 1988, served the State for an astonishing
span of 34 years, and yet was made to depart from its
service without ever being accorded the status of a
regular employee. The appellant belongs to the
Scheduled Caste community. Her entry into service was
neither clandestine nor through the backdoor. It was

3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 909

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

pursuant to a selection process initiated by the
respondent-State, through the Employment Exchange,
for appointment to the post of Typist against a duly
sanctioned and vacant post earmarked for the reserved
category. On being selected, the appellant reported to
duty on 08-06-1988 and continued to discharge the
functions of a Typist under the establishment of the 3rd
respondent – Directorate of Municipal Administration.
2.2. After rendering nearly 24 years of
uninterrupted service, the appellant staked her claim
for regularization. Her claim was not one resting merely
upon her own representation. It received the
recommendation of the very establishment under which
she had been serving, along with the claims of several
other daily-wage employees similarly placed. What
followed, however, was a curious and disturbing
disparity. While 12 daily-wage employees, who had
entered service subsequent to the appointment of the
appellant, were extended the benefit of regularization,
the appellant's claim remained unattended,
notwithstanding the recommendations made in her
favour by the respective departments.
2.3. Years rolled by; representations remained
representations; recommendations remained
recommendations; and the appellant continued to
discharge the duties of a Typist, without the dignity and
security of regular employment. Ultimately, in June
2022, the appellant attained the age of superannuation
and was made to retire after rendering 34 long years of
service, all of which stood branded as daily-wage
service. Thus, an appointment made against a
sanctioned vacant post, pursuant to a selection process
conducted through the Employment Exchange, was
permitted to remain an engagement on daily wages for
more than three decades. The appellant entered service
in the hope of securing a livelihood with dignity,
continued in service with the expectation of being
treated on par with those similarly situated, and
eventually retired with that expectation remaining
unfulfilled.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

2.4. The irony is difficult to overlook. Those who
entered service after the appellant were regularized,
while the appellant, who had preceded them in
appointment and continued to serve the establishment
for 34 years, was left to superannuate as a daily-wage
employee. The State enjoyed the fruits of her labour for
over three decades, but the question of according her
the status of a regular employee remained unanswered
throughout her service career. It is this peculiar, and
indeed poignant, factual circumstance that forms the
fulcrum of the present proceedings.
2.5. The appellant's claim for regularization,
though repeatedly projected before the competent
authorities, had remained in a state of suspended
consideration. The doors of the administration having
yielded no relief, the appellant was constrained to
knock at the doors of this Court by instituting
W.P.No.105093 of 2022, seeking issuance of a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
regularize her services with all consequential benefits,
as had been done in the case of other similarly situated
employees.
2.6. The learned Single Judge, however, declined
to entertain the claim, principally on the ground that
the appellant had already attained the age of
superannuation in June 2022 and, therefore, the
question of regularization of a person who had retired
from service would not arise. The writ petition was
accordingly dismissed by the following order:
“1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any
appropriate order or direction or a writ, more
particularly, in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents herein due to regularize the
services of petitioner along with a consequential
benefits in the interest of justice and equity.
b. To pass such other orders that this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

c. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded.
2. The essential claim of the petitioner is for the
regularization of the services of the petitioner.
However, the petitioner has superannuated in the
mother of June 2022. Hence, the question of now
regularising the services of a person who has
superannuated would not arise.
3. As such, the petition stands dismissed .”
3. Heard Sri R S Shettar, learned counsel appearing for
appellant and Smt Girija S Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
SUBMISSIONS:
APPELLANTS:
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant taking
this Court through the documents appended to the appeal,
which were all appended to the writ petition as well, would
seek to demonstrate that the appellant did not retire on
attaining the age of superannuation without registering her
claim. She has been agitating that she should be regularized
right from the date she completed 10 years of service. He
would submit that the appellant completed 34 years of
service and had all recommendations from the powers that
be for regularization of services. He would contend that
merely because an employee has retired on attaining the age
of superannuation, the law is not that the claim of such
employees would vanish in thin air. He would submit that
the order of the learned Single Judge, on the face of it, is
erroneous. He would seek the relief that had been sought
before the learned Single Judge and regularization of services
of the appellant.
STATE:
5. Contrariwise, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would seek to defend the action of the learned single
Judge, not on the reason so rendered by the learned Single
Judge, but on the score that the appellant has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation and judgment in the
case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA v.
4
UMADEVI(3) would come in the way of regularization of
services of the appellant, as the appellant was appointed as a
daily wage employee, albeit, pursuant to the calling of names

4
(2006) 4 SCC 1

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

from the Employment Exchange, conduct of an interview and
a sanctioned vacant post. Learned High Court Government
Pleader would nevertheless submit that the matter be
remitted back to the learned Single Judge for appropriate
adjudication.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
have perused the material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
7. The dates and the sequence of events forming the
links in the chain that has culminated in the claim of the
appellant are not in dispute. They nevertheless warrant a
brief recapitulation, for it is upon this factual foundation that
the edifice of the appellant's claim rests. The appellant's
entry into service was neither fortuitous nor through any
backdoor arrangement. It was pursuant to a process of
selection undertaken by the respondent-State, by calling for
names from the Employment Exchange, against a duly
sanctioned and vacant post. The appellant was accordingly
appointed on 11-03-1998. Thus, the genesis of the
appellant's appointment lay in a selection process initiated by
the State itself, against an existing sanctioned vacancy, and
not in any surreptitious entry into public employment. This
distinction assumes significance in the consideration of the
appellant's claim for regularization.
7.1. The order of appointment in the Dandeli
Municipality is as follows:
“£ÀA: ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉ/²§âA¢/PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ 2094/87-88 £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ,
zÁAqÉÃ°,
¢£ÁAPÀ:11.03.1998.

jUÉ,
²æÃªÀÄw VÃvÁ gÁ. vÉÃgÀzÁ¼À
ªÁ¸À: ºÀÄ©ÔzÀ ¦±À ªÀiÁPÉðmï ºÀwÛgÀ PÁgÀªÁgÀ

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ®å°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ
¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉAiÀÄÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

00000
ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß UÀä¤¹ f¯Áè GzÉÆåÃUÀ C«¤ªÀÄAiÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ
PÁgÀªÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ FªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ
24.03.88 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 11.00UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ°AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÉÌ

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

ºÁdjgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸À¢æ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ¥Àj²µÀÖ
zÀgÀzÀAvÉ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÉÌ §gÀÄªÀUÀ F PÉ¼ÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ C¸À° zÁR¯É
¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

1. eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ
2. ±Á¯É ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ d£À£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ.
3. «zÁåºÀðvÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ
4. PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ EzÀÝ°è D §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ.
5. JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀvÁæA«ÄÌvÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ £ÀqÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ.
6. E¤ßvÀgÀ zÁR¯É ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÉÌ §gÀÄªÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ RZÀð£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹PÀ,
¸À»/-
DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ
zÁAqÉÃ°”
The appellant thereafter continued to serve the said
Municipality for nearly 18 years, discharging the duties
entrusted to her with an expectation that the long years
of service would eventually receive recognition in the
form of regularization. In the interregnum, having
regard to the qualifications possessed by the appellant,
she was appointed to discharge the functions of a
Computer Operator against a duly sanctioned and
vacant post. The change in the nature of duties,
however, brought about no corresponding change in
the nature of her employment, as she continued to be
retained on daily wages. Thus, while the Municipality
found the appellant qualified and competent to
discharge the duties attached to a sanctioned post, it
continued to deny her the status of a regular employee.
The appellant's services were evidently found necessary
for the functioning of the establishment, but the
question of regularizing those very services remained in
abeyance.
7.2. It is in this backdrop that a communication
emanates from the Municipal Council, Dandeli, on 04-
10-2006, recommending the case of the appellant for
regularization. The communication assumes
significance, for the recommendation came not from

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

the appellant herself, but from the very establishment
which had engaged her services and had the benefit of
her labour over the years. The recommendation,
therefore, was not merely an assertion of entitlement
by the appellant, but an acknowledgment by the
employer of the circumstances warranting consideration
of her claim for regularization. The communication
dated 04-10-2006 reads as follows:
PÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£À¸ÀzÁA/PÀA D /«ªÀ/125:2006.07:365/425 ¢£ÁAPÀ 4/10/2006

jUÉ,
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ
¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ
9 £ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, qÁ © Dgï CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «¢ü
«±ÉéÃ±ÀégÀAiÀÄå PÉÃAzÀæ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 01

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

(ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ PÁgÀªÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀ GavÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÁégÁ)

«µÀAiÀÄ:- zÁAqÉÃ° £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï C¥ÀgÉÃlgï
ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄA UÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä ¢ªÀå ¸À¤ß¢üAiÀÄ°è
vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, zÁAqÉÃ° £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è SÁ° EzÀÝ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ GzÉÆåÃUÀ «¤ªÀÄAiÀÄ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ §AzÀ -AiÀiÁ¢AiÀÄ°è ¥Àj²ÃµÀ×
eÁwAiÀÄªÀjUÁV «ÄÃ¸À°lÖ eÁUÉAiÀÄ°è ²æÃªÀÄw VÃvÁ Dgï vÉÃgÀzÁ¼À EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
1988jAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° DzsÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉÃªÀÄtÆQ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzsÀå CªÀjUÉ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

EªÀgÀÄ J¸ï J¸ï J¯ï ¹ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è vÉÃUÀðqÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ºÁUÀÆ
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ »jAiÀÄ ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è vÉÃUÀðqÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ C®èzÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À
PÀA¥ÀÇålgï vÀgÀ¨ÉÃwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉ 1988 jAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ
¢£ÀUÀÆ° CzsÁgÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ E£ÀÄßªÀgÉUÉ SÁAiÀÄA CVzÀÄÝ
EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. EzÀjAzÀ ¹UÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
C®èzÉ EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ ªÀ»AiÀÄÄ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA UÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV
vÀªÀÄä PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁQAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ CVzÀÄÝ
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zÁAqÉÃ° £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï C¥ÀgÉÃlgï
ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è CxÀªÁ ¢éÃwAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄA UÉÆ½¹zÀ°è CªÀjUÉ
C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. ¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ
E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ SÁAiÀÄA CUÀzÉÃ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ E®èzÉÃ CvÀÄåvÀÛªÀÄªÁV vÀªÀÄä
PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÉÄZÀÄÑUÉUÉ ¥ÁvÀægÁVzÁÝgÉ. C®èzÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ
¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA UÉÆ½¹ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï C¥ÀgÉÃlgï CxÀªÁ ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉð
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQ CAvÁ zÁAqÉÃ° £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄA-EgÀÄªÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ SÁAiÀÄA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

UÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¥Àj²Ã°¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. EzÀgÀ ®UÀÛ ¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÀ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ ºÁUÀÆ
PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ dgÁPïì ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
®Vß¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

CqÀPÀ
1. J¸ï J¸ï J¯ï ¹ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è ¥Á¸ÁzÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥Àæw
2. PÀ£ÀßqÀ, CAUÀè »jAiÀÄ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è vÉÃUÀðqÉAiÀiÁzÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt
¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥Àæw
3. PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÉ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÀÄ
4. ¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÀ «£ÀAw Cfð
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹PÀ

¸À»¬ÄzÉ
¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ°

ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV UËgÀªÀ ¥ÀÇªÀðPÀ M¦à¹zÉ .

¸À»/-
¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ°
¦¦J¥ï

7.3. The recommendations then continued by another
communication on 23-07-2009, which reads as follows:
“£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ zÁAqÉÃ°
¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/07/2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁAUÀtzÀ°è
dgÀÄVzÀ ¸ÀªÀð ¸ÁzsÁgÀt ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Á¸ÁªÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À oÀgÁªÀ £ÀA 178 gÀ
AiÀÄxÁ £ÀPÀ®Ä
«µÀAiÀÄ £ÀA.6:- ²æÃªÀÄw VÃvÁ vÉgÀzÁ¼À, ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀw EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄzÀ
PÀÄjvÀÄ
oÀgÁªÀ £ÀA 178 ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/7/2009:-
«µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸À£ï
1987 zÀ°è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄªÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀªÁV ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À
PÉÆgÀvÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²ÃWÀð°¦UÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄÄ
SÁ° EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀÄA§ÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ CV£À ¸ÁÜ¬Ä ¸À«ÄÃw oÀgÁªÀ £ÀA
173 ¢£ÁAPÀ 10/12/1987 gÀ°è ZÀað¸À¯ÁV £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ MAzÀÄ
²ÃWÀð°¦UÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ JgÀqÀÄ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ EzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è M§â
²ÃWÀð°¦UÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ¥Àæ¹¯Áè ¦ ¥sÀ£ÁAðrÃ¸ï ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÁV
²æÃªÀÄw ±À²gÉÃSÁ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUËqÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ M§â
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ SÁ° EzÉ PÀZÉÃj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÁV SÁ° EzÀÝ
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ f¯Áè GzÉÆåÃUÀ «¤ªÀÄAiÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ¢AzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À
AiÀiÁ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ M§â ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ÁvÉ¬ÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä oÀgÁ¬Ä¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ CjvÀÄ PÉÆArvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ £ÀqÉ¬Ä¹ ²æÃªÀÄw VÃvÁ Dgï vÉÃgÀzÁ¼À CªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ºÁUÀÆ
CAUÀè ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°è ¹Ã¤AiÀÄgï mÉÊ¦AUï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è ¥Á¸ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
CV£À CAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄÃwAiÀÄÄ CAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÁ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄ£ÀUÀArvÀÄ.
EwÛÃa£À ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ CzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ 10 ªÀµÀð ªÉÄÃ®àlÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ÁvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ
¸À°è¹zÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄ UÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ CzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,
CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸À¢æ ²æÃªÀÄw VÃvÁ Dgï vÉgÀzÁ¼À EªÀgÀÄ J®è jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÁ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄvÉUÉ CºÀðgÁVzÀÄÝ ¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀð ºÁUÀÆ GvÀÛªÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ
ºÁUÀÆ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄ UÉÆ½¸À®Ä
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr F §UÉÎ AiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß
PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¸À» EzÉ
CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ°
£ÀPÀ®Ä

¸À»/-
¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁAqÉÃ°
¦¦J¥ï
7.4. On 25-01-2016, pursuant to the
recommendations made by the Municipal Council
seeking regularization of the services of employees
engaged on daily wages, a list comprising 26 names
was forwarded to the competent authority for
consideration . Of the 26 employees so
recommended, 12 came to be regularized. The
appellant, however, was conspicuously left out,
notwithstanding her long years of service, the
recommendation made by the very establishment
under which she was working, and the claim for
regularization founded upon documents whose
authenticity is not in dispute. The benefit of
regularization thus reached several employees,
but eluded the appellant, who had continued to
serve the establishment for decades. The State,
which had found it appropriate to regularize the
services of 12 employees from the very same list, left
the claim of the appellant unanswered. The appellant's
case was thus not one of seeking an isolated
indulgence, but of seeking consideration on parity with
those whose services had been regularized pursuant to
the very same exercise.

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

7.5. The passage of time did not bring the
appellant any closer to regularization. Representations
were made, recommendations were forwarded, and
years passed by, but the appellant continued to remain
a daily-wage employee. What ought to have received
consideration during the currency of her service was
permitted to linger until the very service itself came to
an end. The appellant, having spent the greater part of
her working life in the service of the Municipality,
ultimately attained the age of superannuation without
the benefit of regularization. The culmination of her
service, however, did not mark the culmination of her
pursuit of the claim. Having approached this Court at
the time of her retirement, the appellant instituted the
subject writ petition seeking regularization of her
services with all consequential benefits. The prayers
sought in the writ petition read as follows:
“a. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any
appropriate order or direction or a writ, more
particularly, in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents herein due to regularize the
services of petitioner along with a consequential
benefits in the interest of justice and equity.
b. To pass such other orders that this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
c. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be
awarded.”
The grievance projected by the appellant, therefore, is
not merely that she was denied regularization, but that
she was denied consideration for regularization while
similarly situated employees were extended that
benefit, and the passage of time was ultimately
permitted to operate against her. Whether the State
could allow a claim of this nature to remain
undecided throughout the employee's service and
thereafter invoke superannuation as a ground to
deny its consideration is the issue that lies at the
heart of the present appeal. The prayer was for a

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

direction to regularize the services and grant of
consequential benefits.
8. The issue now is, whether the appellant is
entitled to seek regularization of services,
notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was
appointed on daily wages and retires on attaining
the age of superannuation being a daily wage
employee for 34 years?
8.1. The sheet anchor of the defence projected by the
respondents-State is the judgment of the Constitution Bench
of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI supra, wherein,
according to the State, regularization of employees engaged
on daily wages, dehors the regular process of recruitment, is
impermissible, more so when such employees have already
attained the age of superannuation while continuing as daily-
wage employees. The State would thus seek to place the
judgment in the case of UMADEVI as an insurmountable
legal impediment to the claim of the appellant. The
submission, though seemingly formidable, requires
examination in the light of the law declared in the case
of UMADEVI, the exception carved out therein, and the
subsequent exposition of its principles by the Apex
Court.
8.2. The judgment in the case of UMADEVI cannot be
read as though it were a charter for perpetuating irregular
employment, nor can its declaration of law be divorced from
the constitutional philosophy that animated it. The
Constitution Bench sought to prevent the backdoor entry into
public employment; it did not intend to confer upon the State
an unbridled licence to extract labour against sanctioned
posts for decades together and thereafter disown the
legitimate claims of those very employees by invoking the
doctrine against regularization. Equally, the exception
recognized in the judgment cannot be employed to defeat
the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment.
The distinction between an illegal appointment and an
irregular appointment, the existence of a duly sanctioned
post, the manner of initial engagement, the qualifications
possessed by the employee, and the length and continuity of
service are all facets that assume significance in the
consideration of a claim of this nature.
8.3. The issue, therefore, is not whether every daily-
wage employee acquires an indefeasible right to

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

regularization by the mere passage of time. The issue is
whether an employee who entered service through the
Employment Exchange against a sanctioned vacancy,
continued to serve the State for decades, received
recommendations for regularization, and witnessed similarly
situated employees being regularized, could be denied even
consideration of her claim solely because she had, in the
meantime, attained the age of superannuation . To answer
this question, it becomes necessary to traverse the
trajectory of the law from UMADEVI to the judgments
that followed, for the law must be understood not
merely by its declaration at one point in time, but by
the manner in which its principles have subsequently
been explained, distinguished and applied.
9. It is, therefore, germane to notice the evolution of
the law on regularization, beginning with the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in UMADEVI and proceeding to its
judicial aftermath.
UMADEVI AND ITS AFTERMATH

9.1. The Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of
UMADEVI supra, considers appointments that are illegal,
irregular and persons who have been working for the last 10
years as on the date of the judgment i.e., on 10-04-2006, all
can be considered for regularization. However, it was noticed
that an appropriate scheme could be framed even otherwise.
The Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may
be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071]
, R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR
799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980
SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in
para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of
the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and
in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union
of India, the State Governments and their

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months
from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should be
no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement
and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run
counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which
directions running counter to what we have held herein, will
stand denuded of their status as precedents.
55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial
Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those
engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary
and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees
of their cadre in government service, with effect from the
dates from which they were respectively appointed. The
objection taken was to the direction for payment from the
dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly
gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary
equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the
regular employees of their cadre in government service, with
effect from the dates from which they were respectively
engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to
impose such an obligation on the State when the very
question before the High Court in the case was whether
these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal
work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They
had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so.
We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division
Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages
equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be
paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date
of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the
Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-
wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest
grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes
Department in government service, from the date of the

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since,
they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question
of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our
conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue
directions for making such persons permanent in service, we
set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing
the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We
also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the
aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving
permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In
such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand
deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand
allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they
are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for
filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when
regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs
Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes
Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete,
waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and
giving some weightage for their having been engaged for
work in the Department for a significant period of time. That
would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.”

After the said judgment of the Apex Court in UMADEVI , the
judicial thought process has undergone a change owing to
the fact of exploitation of human labour at the hands of the
State projecting the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of UMADEVI .
9.2. The Apex Court in the case
of AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF
5
ORISSA , had held as follows:
“…. …. ….
42. The decision in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753], as noticed earlier, permitted regularisation
of regular appointments and not illegal appointments.
Question, however, is whether the appointments in the
instant case could be described as illegal and if they
were not, whether the State could be directed to
regularise the services of the degree-holder Junior
Engineers who have worked as ad hoc Assistant
Engineers for such a long period, not only on the

5
(2014) 4 SCC 583

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

analogy of the legislative enactment for regularisation
but also on the principle underlying para 53 of the
decision in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753].

43. As to what would constitute an irregular
appointment is no longer res integra. The decision
of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.
Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
826], has examined that question and explained
the principle regarding regularisation as
enunciated in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753]. The decision in that case summed up
the following three essentials for regularisation :
(1) the employees have worked for ten years or
more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly
sanctioned post without the benefit or protection
of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and
(3) they should have possessed the minimum
qualification stipulated for the appointment.
Subject to these three requirements being
satisfied, even if the appointment process did not
involve open competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and not
illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para
7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted
at this stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], SCC p. 250)

“7. It is evident from the above that
there is an exception to the general
principles against ‘regularisation’
enunciated in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], if the following
conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned
should have worked for 10 years or
more in a duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of
the interim order of any court or

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

tribunal. In other words, the State
Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the employee
and continued him in service
voluntarily and continuously for more
than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such
employee should not be illegal, even
if irregular. Where the appointments
are not made or continued against
sanctioned posts or where the
persons appointed do not possess the
prescribed minimum qualifications,
the appointments will be considered
to be illegal. But where the person
employed possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working
against sanctioned posts, but had
been selected without undergoing the
process of open competitive selection,
such appointments are considered to
be irregular.”

44. It is nobody's case that the degree-
holder Junior Engineers were not qualified for
appointment as Assistant Engineers as even they
possess degrees from recognised institutions. It
is also nobody's case that they were not appointed
against the sanctioned post. There was some
debate as to the actual number of vacancies
available from time to time but we have no
hesitation in holding that the appointments made
were at all relevant points of time against
sanctioned posts. The information provided by Mr.
Nageswara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the State of Orissa, in fact,
suggests that the number of vacancies was at all
points of time more than the number of
appointments made on ad hoc basis. It is also
clear that each one of the degree-holders has
worked for more than 10 years ever since his
appointment as ad hoc Assistant Engineer. It is in
that view difficult to describe these appointments

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

of the Stipendiary Engineers on ad hoc basis to be
illegal so as to fall beyond the purview of the
scheme envisaged in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753].

45. The upshot of the above discussion is
that not only because in Umadevi (3) case [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] this Court did not disturb
the appointments already made or regularisation
granted, but also because the decision itself
permitted regularisation in case of irregular
appointments, the legislative enactment granting
such regularisation does not call for interference
at this late stage when those appointed or
regularised have already started retiring having
served their respective departments, in some
cases for as long as 22 years .”

9.3. The Apex Court in the case of SHEO
6
NARAIN NAGAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ,
holds as follows:
“…. …. ….

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent has relied upon para 44 of the decision
in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], so as to
contend that it was not the case of irregular
appointment but of illegal appointment; there was no
post available on which the services of the appellants
could have been regularised and appointment were in
contravention of the reservation policy also; thus,
termination order was rightly issued and, in no case,
the appellants were entitled for regularisation of their
services.

7. When we consider the prevailing
scenario, it is painful to note that the decision
in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has

6
(2018) 13 SCC 432

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

not been properly understood and rather wrongly
applied by various State Governments. We have
called for the data in the instant case to ensure as
to how many employees were working on
contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis
in different State departments. We can take
judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is
being continued. Though this Court has
emphasised that incumbents should be appointed
on regular basis as per rules but new devise of
making appointment on contract basis has been
adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage
basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation
was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. The prime intendment of the
decision was that the employment process should
be by fair means and not by back door entry and
in the available pay scale. That spirit of
the Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and
conveniently overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities. We regretfully make
the observation that Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its
true spirit and has not been followed in its pith
and substance. It is being used only as a tool for
not regularising the services of incumbents. They
are being continued in service without payment of
due salary for which they are entitled on the basis
of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India as if they have no
constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR
1983 SC 130], from cradle to grave. In heydays of
life they are serving on exploitative terms with no
guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old
age they are going to be destituted, there being
no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc.
There is clear contravention of constitutional
provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class.

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

They do have equal rights and to make them
equals they require protection and cannot be
dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment
meted out is not only bad but equally
unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have
to strike a balance to really implement the
ideology of Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753]. Thus, the time has come to stop the
situation where Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] can be permitted to be flouted,
whereas, this Court has interdicted such
employment way back in the year 2006. The
employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid down
that there should not be back door entry and every
post should be filled by regular employment, but a new
device has been adopted for making appointment on
payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or
otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when
we consider the pith and substance of true spirit
in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753].

8. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there
was a direction issued way back in the year 1999, to
consider the regularisation of the appellants. However,
regularisation was not done. The respondents chose to
give minimum of the pay scale, which was available to
the regular employees, way back in the year 2000 and
by passing an order, the appellants were also conferred
temporary status in the year 2006, with retrospective
effect on 2-10-2002. As the respondents have
themselves chosen to confer a temporary status to the
employees, as such there was requirement at work and
posts were also available at the particular point of time
when order was passed. Thus, the submission raised by
the learned counsel for the respondent that posts were
not available, is belied by their own action. Obviously,
the order was passed considering the long period of
services rendered by the appellants, which were taken
on exploitative terms.

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

9. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753]. But the appellants were employed
basically in the year 1993; they had rendered
service for three years, when they were offered
the service on contract basis; it was not the case
of back door entry; and there were no Rules in
place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus,
the appointment could not be said to be illegal
and in contravention of Rules, as there were no
such Rules available at the relevant point of time,
when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f.
2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be
appointed on regular basis as a one-time
measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. Since the appellants had
completed 10 years of service and temporary
status had been given by the respondents with
retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we direct
that the services of the appellants be regularised
from the said date i.e. 2.10.2002, consequential
benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to
the appellants within a period of three months
from today.”
9.4. The Apex Court in the case of NARENDRA
7
KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND , holds as
follows:
“…. …. ….
7. The purpose and intent of the
decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore
twofold, 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

7
(2018) 8 SCC 238

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

for almost a decade after the decision
in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State
of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to
avoid.

8. If a strict and literal interpretation,
forgetting the spirit of the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into
consideration then no irregularly appointed
employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever
be regularised since that State came into
existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off
date was fixed as 10-4-2006. 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.

9. 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

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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.

10. 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. ”

9.5. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court
considering the case of UMADEVI supra and
subsequent judgments, in the case of PREM
8
SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , holds as
follows:
“…. …. ….

36. There are some of the employees who have
not been regularised in spite of having rendered the
services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have
been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-
charged establishment, not against any particular
project, their services ought to have been regularised
under the Government instructions and even as per the
decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. This Court in the said
decision has laid down that in case services have
been rendered for more than ten years without
the cover of the Court's order, as one-time
measure, the services be regularised of such
employees. In the facts of the case, those

8
(2019) 10 SCC 516

- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

employees who have worked for ten years or
more should have been regularised. It would not
be proper to regulate them for consideration of
regularisation as others have been regularised,
we direct that their services be treated as a
regular one. However, it is made clear that they
shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of
difference in wages had they been continued in
service regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive
the pension as if they have retired from the
regular establishment and the services rendered
by them right from the day they entered the
work-charged establishment shall be counted as
qualifying service for purpose of pension .”

9.6. The Apex Court in the case of CHANDER
9
MOHAN NEGI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ,
holds as follows:
“…. …. ….

13. It is true that in the initial schemes
notified by the Government, there was a condition
that such appointees should not seek
regularisation/ absorption but at the same time
for no fault of them, they cannot be denied
regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the
requirement of the State, their services were
extended from time to time and now all the
appointees have completed more than 15 years of
service. For majority of the appointed Teachers
under the various schemes, benefit was already
extended and some left over candidates were
denied on account of interim orders passed by
this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers,
it is stated that all the candidates have completed
Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course
and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5
years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal
Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The judgments relied
on by learned counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan also

9
(2020) 5 SCC 732

- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

would not render any assistance to the case of the
appellants herein for the reason that there was
unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the
appellants in approaching the High Court and further
having regard to explanation offered by the State about
the need of framing such policies to meet the
immediate requirement to fill up single teacher schools
which were vacant for a very long time, having regard
to topographical conditions, which is not even
controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High
Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality
of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are
of the view that the view expressed by this Court
in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to
the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed
candidates are working for the meagre salaries
pursuant to schemes notified by the Government.
Except the vague submission that such schemes
were framed only to make backdoor entries, there
is no material placed on record to buttress such
submission. Further it is also to be noted that
though such schemes were notified as early as in
2003, nobody has questioned such policies and
appointments up to 2012 and 2013. The writ
petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed in the
year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as
party respondents. In the writ petition, there was no
rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the
averments of the State as stated in the reply-affidavit.
Having regard to the nature of such appointments,
appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as
illegal. Having regard to material placed before this
Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the
impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014
SCC OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of the
view that no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of
H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court.”

9.7. The Apex Court in the case of SUKHENDU
10
BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE OF ASSAM , while
following the earlier judgments in the cases of JAGGO

10

2026 SCC OnLine SC 909

- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
st
much prior 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 regularized pursuant to the Cabinet
nd
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
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

- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

(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 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)

- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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

- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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

- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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.”
(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 (supra), i.e., after
th
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

- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

consciously decided to regularize the services of
Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged
st
prior 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.

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 Muster Roll workers engaged prior
st
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

- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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.

- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

65. It is not in dispute that nearly 30,000
workers were regularized pursuant to the Cabinet
nd
decision dated 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 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

- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 to ensure that its actions
are just, reasonable and non-arbitrary. Recently,
13
this Court in Bhola Nath v. 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

- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
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

- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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

- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 responsibilities typically
associated with sanctioned posts.
Moreover, the respondents did not

- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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

- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

instrumentalities. The said judgment
sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that
circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but
possibly “irregular,” and where
employees had served continuously
against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the
need for a fair and humane resolution
becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required
on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding
fair regularization . In a recent judgment
of this Court in Vinod 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

- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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

- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic
disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This
practice not only perpetuates exploitation
but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and
Benefits : Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure
spans decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and
ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long- serving
employees. This judgment aimed to
distinguish between “illegal” and
“irregular” appointments. It
categorically held that employees in
irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than
ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the

- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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)

- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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

- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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)

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

- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 they were not initially
appointed against duly sanctioned posts. The
st
State, having engaged the 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

- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

employer and does not withstand scrutiny under
Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The said judgment was rendered on 21-05-2026.
9.8. Subsequent to the said judgment, the Apex
Court, again, in the case of BHIKHANI DEVI v. UNION OF
11
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?’

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

11
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055

- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
India6 also assumes significance, wherein this Court
held that where an employee has rendered long years
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

- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava7 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 )

- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

…. …. ….

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” 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.

- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 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.

- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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 ‘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

- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
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

- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

‘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 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

- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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
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

- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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.

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’

- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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, 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

- 66 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

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)

10. In AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA supra,
the Apex Court undertook a detailed reconciliation of
UMADEVI with STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M.L.KESARI
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 , elucidating why
regularization must necessarily follow once an employee has
completed 10 years of service while being otherwise
qualified.

11. The first discernable departure from the rigid
contours of UMADEVI was in the case of SHEO NARAIN
NAGAR, supra, where the Apex Court lamented that
UMADEVI was being wielded as a convenient
instrument to perpetuate injustice, by continuing
employees in service without regularization and in
some cases, even without payment of lawful wages.
Noting that the appellants therein had been in service since
1993 and had completed 10 years well prior to UMADEVI ,
the Court held that denial of regularization would be wholly
unjustified. This exposition was further amplified in
NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI supra, where the Apex
Court cautioned that the pernicious practice of
indefinitely continuing employees appointed through
irregular means if allowed to persist, would subvert
the very intent of the Constitution Bench in UMADEVI.
The Court observed that where employees had
rendered 10 years of continuous service to the State of
Jharkhand, they observed regularization barring the
existence of any valid impediment such as misconduct
or lack of eligibility. The reasoning finds further affirmation
in the case of PREM SINGH supra.

12. The Apex Court carried forward the
jurisprudence in CHANDER MOHAN NEGI supra, wherein

- 67 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

the Apex Court was dealing with the case of teachers,
exhorted the State forthwith to frame an appropriate policy
for regularization.

13. Thereafter, in JAGGO supra, the Apex Court
after an exhaustive consideration of rival submissions,
holds that the employees who had rendered
uninterrupted service extended far beyond a decade,
could not be nonchalantly discarded by the facile label
of ‘part time’ or ‘contractual’. The Apex Court
underscored that the true essence of employment lies
in the sustained contribution rendered, the integral
nature of work performed and the absence of
allegation that the entry was tainted by illegality or
subterfuge. The Apex Court requesting plight of
employees who had toiled for a decade or two, without
career progression or equal remuneration holding that
such treatment amounted to denial of basic human
right and a perpetuation of exploitation of human
labour. The culmination of this judicial evaluation is reflected
in SHRIPAL supra, where the Apex Court after surveying the
entire spectrum of law, unequivocally holds that the
UMADEVI cannot be pressed into service as a shield to
justify exploitative engagements continuing for years
without the employer undertaking lawful recruitment.
Consequently, the regularization was directed for employees
who had completed 10 years of service.

14. The line of reasoning attained further
crystallization in DHARAM SINGH supra, rendered in
August 2025 wherein, the Apex Court holds that the
appellants who had already retired were nevertheless
entitled to regularization with effect from the date on
which they completed 10 years of service. The Apex
Court further directed re-calculation and disbursement
of pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits within
three months from the date of the said judgment.
Significantly, even in respect of the deceased
appellants, the Apex Court held where death occurred
during the pendency of the claim of regularization, the
legal heirs would be entitled to arrears of terminal
benefits, in accordance with law.

15. What unmistakably emerges from the
afore-quoted pronouncements is that the employees
regardless of the nomenclature attached to their
engagement, whether temporary, contractual or daily
wage or even on consolidated pay, once they have
completed 10 years of service and were otherwise

- 68 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

qualified to hold the post, are entitled to consideration
for regularization. Any denial thereof would reduce the
appointment to an exploitative engagement. The Apex
Court has further cautioned that replacement of one set of
temporary or contractual employees with another similarly
placed set, would offend even the ratio of UMADEVI itself.
As such, the conduct on the part of the State, cannot be
countenanced.

16. In so far as the retired employees are
concerned, the Apex Court has authoritatively held
that retirement during the pendency of the claim for
regularization does not extinguish such claim. The
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant, merits acceptance as the petitioner in the
present case retired while her claim for regularization
subsisted and during the pendency of the writ petition,
the right to consideration does not evaporate on
attainment of age of superannuation. The Apex Court
has gone a step further to hold that even in cases of
deceased employees who asserted their claim for
regularization during their lifetime and whose claim remained
pending either before the State or before this Court or
competent Judicial Fora, such claims must still be examined
and granted, if otherwise permissible.
17. In the case of SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE, the
Apex Court considers the interplay between the Constitution
Bench judgment in UMADEVI , the exception carved out in
paragraph 53 thereof, and the constitutional guarantee of
equality under Article 14. The controversy arose when nearly
30,000 work-charged and muster-roll employees were
regularized pursuant to a policy decision of the State, while
several identically situated employees were excluded owing
to administrative lapses and clerical omissions.
17.1. The Apex Court holds that UMADEVI cannot be
construed as imposing an absolute and inflexible embargo
upon regularization in every conceivable circumstance. The
object of UMADEVI was to prevent illegal appointments and
backdoor entries into public employment, and not to furnish
the State with a convenient shield to perpetuate arbitrary
treatment of employees who had rendered long and
continuous service.
17.2 The Apex Court draws a distinction between a
claim founded upon the one-time exception under paragraph
53 of UMADEVI and a claim founded upon equal treatment

- 69 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

under an existing policy of regularization. Where the State
has consciously regularized one class of employees, it cannot
arbitrarily exclude other employees who are identically
situated in the matter of appointment, nature of duties,
length of service and eligibility. Such selective regularization
would fall foul of Article 14.
17.3. The Apex Court further emphasizes that the
State, as a model employer, cannot extract labour for
decades, hold out assurances of regularization and thereafter
invoke technicalities to defeat the legitimate expectations of
its employees.
18. In BHIKHANI DEVI, the Apex Court considers
whether a casual labourer who had been conferred
temporary status and had subsequently attained
superannuation without formal regularization could be denied
pensionary and retiral benefits. Tracing the development of
service jurisprudence through JAGRIT MAZDOOR UNION
(REGD.) v. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.
reported in 1990 Supp SCC 113 ; VINOD KUMAR v.
UNION OF INDIA reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327; JAGGO
supra and YASHWANT HARI KATAKKAR v. UNION OF
INDIA reported in (1996) 7 SCC 113 , the Apex Court holds
that the nomenclature attached to an employee's
engagement cannot, by itself, determine the substantive
benefits to which such employee is entitled. The Apex Court
observes that pension is neither a bounty nor an act of
governmental generosity. It is a hard-earned benefit flowing
from qualifying service and, where legally accrued,
constitutes property protected under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
19. On a conspectus of the law declared by
the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments,
what would unmistakably emerge is that the
nomenclature attached to an employee's
engagement, be it temporary, contractual, daily-
wage or on consolidated pay, cannot, by itself,
become the determinative factor in considering
the claim for regularization. Where an employee,
otherwise qualified to hold the post, has rendered
ten years or more of continuous service against a
duly sanctioned vacancy, without the protective
umbrella of orders of Courts or Tribunals, the
claim for regularization warrants consideration
within the parameters delineated in UMADEVI and

- 70 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

its subsequent exposition. The constitutional
philosophy underlying these judgments is that
the State cannot, on the one hand, extract the
labour of an employee for decades together,
discharging duties which are perennial and
integral to its functioning, and, on the other, deny
even consideration of regularization by taking
refuge under the nomenclature of the
engagement. The State cannot have the benefit of
permanent labour under the guise of temporary
employment, nor can it convert the vulnerability
of an employee into a perpetual instrument of
administrative convenience. To deny
consideration of regularization merely because
the employee has, in the meantime, attained the
age of superannuation, would be to permit the
State to reap the fruits of decades of labour and
thereafter wash its hands of the obligations that
may have accrued during the subsistence of such
employment. Such an approach would lend
judicial imprimatur to an exploitative engagement
of human labour, a course that would be wholly
antithetical to the constitutional ideals of
fairness, dignity and social justice.
20. The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted
judgments, has underscored that the mere attainment
of the age of superannuation cannot, by itself, become
a reason to defeat accrued service-related entitlements
or to decline consideration of a claim that had arisen
during the currency of employment. The right to seek
consideration of regularization, where otherwise
available in law, does not evaporate into thin air
upon the employee crossing the threshold of
superannuation. Retirement may bring the
relationship of employment to an end; it does not
necessarily bring to an end the legal
consequences of an unlawful denial of benefits
during that employment. An employee who has
devoted the prime of her youth and the greater
part of her working life to the service of the State
cannot be shown the door at the twilight of her
career, with nothing to show for decades of toil,
merely because the State chose to perpetuate her

- 71 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

engagement on daily wages. Such treatment,
where the employee was otherwise entitled to
regularization, would be unfair in its conception,
unjust in its operation and unconscionable in its
consequences. It would reduce public
employment to an arrangement under which the
State secures the labour of an employee during
the most productive years of her life, but denies
the attendant security and benefits when they are
most needed. The judgment in UMADEVI cannot be
pressed into service as an all-purpose shield to justify
such prolonged precarious engagements. It was a
judgment intended to preserve constitutional discipline
in public recruitment, not a licence to perpetuate
exploitation under the protective cloak of constitutional
legality. The State, which is expected to be a
model employer, cannot be permitted to
transform a constitutional safeguard against
illegal appointments into a weapon against
employees whose services it has continuously
utilized for decades.
21. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are
considered on the bedrock of the principles so
enunciated by the Apex Court, the arbitrariness in the
treatment meted out to the appellant becomes writ
large. The appellant did not enter service through any
backdoor arrangement. Her name was drawn from the
list maintained by the Employment Exchange, pursuant
to a process initiated by the respondent-State. The
appointment was against a duly sanctioned and vacant
post, with the policy of reservation being given effect
to, as the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste
community. The appellant thereafter continued to
serve the Municipality for 34 long years,
discharging duties in different capacities,
including those of a Typist and a Computer
Operator. The Municipality itself found her
services worthy of regularization and forwarded
recommendations to that effect .
22. The recommendations did not remain wholly
unacted upon, for, out of 26 employees whose names
were forwarded, 12 were extended the benefit of

- 72 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

regularization. The appellant, however, was left behind,
notwithstanding her long years of service and the
recommendation made in her favour. The State thus
drew a line between employees who stood on the same
footing, extending the benefit of regularization to some
while leaving the appellant to languish in the
uncertainty of daily-wage employment. No justifiable
distinction warranting such differential treatment is
forthcoming from the material placed before this Court.
The conduct of the State, which ought to have been a
model employer, falls woefully short of the
constitutional standards of fairness and non-
arbitrariness.
23. The learned Single Judge, in the considered
view of this Court, ought to have examined these
circumstances rather than non-suiting the appellant on
the solitary ground that she had attained the age of
superannuation. The appellant's retirement did not
erase the 34 years of service rendered by her; neither
did it obliterate the claim that had arisen long before
her retirement. The learned Single Judge, therefore, fell
into error in declining to examine the claim on its
merits merely because the appellant had
superannuated.
24. The cumulative effect of the afore-narrated
facts, viewed through the prism of the law declared by
the Apex Court, leaves little room for doubt that the
appellant has made out a case for relief. The appellant's
entry into service through the Employment Exchange,
her appointment against a sanctioned vacancy, the
uninterrupted service rendered for 34 years, the
recommendations made for regularization, and the
extension of that very benefit to similarly situated
employees constitute circumstances which, taken
together, demonstrate the manifest arbitrariness of her
exclusion. This is not a case where an employee seeks
to secure regularization merely by invoking the length
of service. It is a case where the State, having initiated
the process of appointment, utilized the services of the
appellant for decades, recommended her regularization
and regularized others similarly situated, seeks to deny

- 73 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

her the same benefit by invoking the very passage of
time during which her claim remained unattended.
25. In the peculiar and compelling circumstances
obtaining in the case at hand, this Court is of the
considered view that a mere mandamus directing the
respondents to reconsider the claim of the appellant
would be an inadequate remedy. Such a direction would
only consign the appellant, now a superannuated
employee, to yet another round of administrative
consideration and, possibly, another journey to the
doors of this Court. The law does not demand that a
litigant, who has already spent decades pursuing a
legitimate claim, be condemned to an endless cycle of
representations, rejections and litigation. Justice, to be
meaningful, must not merely recognize a wrong; it
must, where the facts and law so warrant, furnish an
effective remedy for that wrong. The appellant is,
therefore, entitled to a direction for regularization of
her services with consequential service and retiral
benefits, to be worked out in accordance with the
applicable rules.
26. Before parting, this Court deems it
necessary to remind the respondent-State of its
solemn obligation as a model employer. The State
must not become an exemplar of the very
exploitation which the Constitution commands it
to prevent. It cannot retain employees on daily
wages for the greater part of their working lives,
deny them the security of regular employment,
and thereafter compel them to spend the evening
of their lives in the corridors of Courts seeking
recognition of services rendered over decades.
The respondents would do well to ensure that
such instances do not recur, for constitutional
governance demands not merely obedience to
judicial directions after litigation, but fairness in
administrative action before litigation becomes
inevitable.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed.

- 74 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

(ii) The order dated 29-08-2025, passed by
the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.105093 of 2022, stands set aside.
(iii) The appellant shall be entitled to
regularization of her services in the
cadre in which she was working at
the time of attaining the age of
superannuation, with effect from the
date on which she completed ten
years of service, i.e., 11-02-1998,
together with all consequential
benefits flowing therefrom.
(iv) It is made clear that the
consequential benefits to which the
appellant shall be entitled would
include notional continuity of regular
service from the date of completion
of ten years of service, for the
purposes of pay fixation and all other
admissible service benefits. The
entire period of 34 years of service
rendered by the appellant shall be
reckoned for the purpose of
determination and computation of
pension, gratuity and all other
admissible terminal and retiral
benefits. The respondents shall
accordingly undertake the necessary
exercise of refixation of pay and
determination of consequential
benefits.
(v) The respondents shall pass
appropriate orders regularizing the
services of the appellant and giving
effect to the directions issued
hereinabove, within an outer limit of
eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(vi) In the event of failure to comply with
the aforesaid direction within the
stipulated period, the appellant shall,

- 75 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

in addition to the benefits directed
hereinabove, become entitled to
arrears of wages quantified at 50%
of the salary entitlement flowing
from such regularization, as a
consequence of non-compliance with
the directions of this Court.
Ordered accordingly.”
8. The contentions urged by Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Institute has
been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in
GEETA RAMAPPA TERDAL supra and the same cannot
be countenanced.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Division
Bench in GEETA RAMAPPA TERDAL supra, the impugned
Termination Letters and Endorsements issued in these
Writ Petitions shall not stand to any reason and require to
be quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed .

- 76 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

(ii) The impugned Termination Letters dated
17.02.2023 and 22.02.2023 respectively and
Endorsements dated 08.02.2023 and
17.02.2023 respectively, are quashed. The
petitioners shall be reinstated in the service
with immediate effect.
(iii) A Mandamus is issued with further direction
that the petitioners shall be regularized in
service in the cadre in which they are
working with effect from the date on which
they completed 10 years of service, together
with all consequential benefits flowing
therefrom, in terms of the order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in GEETA
RAMAPPA TERDAL supra, as expeditiously
as possible within the outer limit of 03
months from today.
(iv) Compliance report shall be filed with the
Registry immediately after expiry of 03
months.

- 77 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17598
WP No. 101654 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101475 of 2023

CNR: KAHC020044632023

11. In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed
of.

Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17