MP High Court upholds direction to reframe policy for long-serving daily-wage employees

Respondents Rajesh Nagar and Juspendra Singh Yadav filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Registrar, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand Vishwavidyalaya, Chhatarpur, in not regularising their services despite more than ten years of service, relying principally on State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The Writ Court, by order dated 25.03.2025, directed the University to consider their claim for regularisation and further directed the State Government to frame a comprehensive policy concerning regularisation of daily-rated employees.

The University subsequently considered and rejected the regularisation claim by order dated 04.05.2026.

The State Government challenged the remaining direction requiring it to frame a policy, contending that such a direction would be contrary to Uma Devi and other Supreme Court decisions.

The Court noted that the State had earlier issued the Viniyamitikaran Policy dated 07.10.2016, under which daily-rated employees completing more than ten years of service were categorised into different grades and were provided an opportunity for regularisation through selection under the Madhya Pradesh Kanisth Seva (Sanyukt Arhata) Niyam, 2013.

Whether the direction requiring the State Government to frame or reconsider a comprehensive policy for regularisation of long-serving daily-rated employees was contrary to the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and other precedents.

Whether the portion of the Writ Court’s order directing consideration of the respondents’ individual regularisation claims required interference after the University had considered and rejected those claims.

Whether the State’s existing regularisation/viniyamitikaran framework required reconsideration in light of subsequent decisions concerning irregular appointments and long-serving temporary employees.

The Court applied the constitutional principles governing public employment and regularisation laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, including the distinction between illegal appointments, which cannot ordinarily be regularised, and irregular appointments made against sanctioned posts where the employee has served continuously for more than ten years and may be considered under a one-time measure.

The Court also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which cautioned against mechanically using Uma Devi to reject legitimate claims of long-serving employees and emphasised fair and stable employment practices.

The Court further referred to Union of India v. K. Velajagan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 837, and Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144, as developments requiring consideration while formulating the State’s policy.

The State’s reliance on Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2026 INSC 379, Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, (2021) 20 SCC 290, State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, and Vibhuti Shankar v. State of M.P., SLP (C) No. 10519 of 2020, was considered in the context of the challenge to the policy direction.

The Court held that the State could not rely on Uma Devi in isolation while continuing, through its departments, to engage daily-rated employees for prolonged periods and simultaneously failing to undertake regular recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts.

The State’s own 2016 policy contemplated a one-time regularisation exercise following viniyamitikaran, demonstrating that a policy-based response to irregular but long-standing employment was not inherently inconsistent with Uma Devi.

In view of the subsequent decisions, the State’s continued engagement of daily-rated workers, and its own communication stating that it was considering a comprehensive policy, the direction to reconsider and reframe the policy was found justified.

As regards the individual claims, the University had already passed a rejection order; therefore, the respondents’ remedy was to challenge that order separately rather than pursue the already-complied-with direction in the present appeal.

The Court declined to interfere with the Writ Court’s direction requiring the State Government to frame or reconsider a comprehensive policy concerning regularisation of daily-rated employees, holding that the existing policy should be reframed in light of Uma Devi, Jaggo, K. Velajagan, and Shripal.

Since the University had already considered and rejected the respondents’ individual regularisation claims, they were left at liberty to challenge the order dated 04.05.2026 through a separate writ petition.