# Anil Kumar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1804
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5237 of 2008
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54427
- **Pages:** 26

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 83,945. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

1804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clear implication in the inquiry report that even though there may have been oral direction, post
facto approval ought to have been obtained. The pressure of work dealt with cannot in hindsight be
under scrutiny on pedantic approach of having violated a rule, when the emergent situation of the
pandemic was well met by the administration.

10. Impugned punishment order and judgment are set aside and quashed, with consequent
restoration of the increments denied. Mr. Pandey submits, the Departmental Promotion
Committee's (DPC) report on his client has been kept in sealed cover. It be opened and evaluated as
a consequence of this judgment and in event the report so recommends, petitioner be given the
promotion retrospectively.

11. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1804
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 5237 of 2008

Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether the State can avoid paying salary to an employee who was recruited through an open, nonbackdoor process by relying indefinitely on its own bureaucratic delay in formalizing a post-sanction?
(b) Whether State can refuse to sanction posts indefinitely where the work is perennial in nature and
employees have been working for long years?
(c) Whether non-payment of salary for work taken is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and amounts to exploitation?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Petitioner No. 1 had been granted a promotion and Petitioner No. 3 had received a fresh
appointment. Consequently, the ongoing petition explicitly agitated the grievances of Petitioner No. 2 alone.
Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences, Sultanpur, is a recognized higher education institution
affiliated with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, and governed by the university's Statute of
1978.
Facing an acute shortage of administrative staff, the Committee of Management issued a recruitment notice in
The Times of India (11.08.2004) and a local daily (17.08.2004) inviting applications for Class III posts.
Following evaluation by a duly constituted selection committee, Petitioner No. 2 secured the highest rank and
was issued an appointment order on 08.11.2004, under anticipation of post-sanction. The institution had
submitted a formal proposal for the creation and sanction of clerical posts to the Director of Higher Education
as early as 31.08.1998. Despite reminders in 2002 and 2004, the State authorities sat on the proposal
indefinitely.
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1805
Since joining on 08.11.2004, Petitioner No. 2 continuously discharged his clerical duties without a single
blemish or break. However, the State exchequer refused to disburse his regular salary or outstanding arrears,
prompting him to seek a writ of mandamus for payment, post-sanctioning, and non-interference.
B. Distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments - irregular appointments, made
after due process, deserve protection. Continuous service coupled with a selection process akin
to regular recruitment cannot be ignored on the ground of initial procedural irregularity. (Para 22)

In present case, the appointment falls within the category of at best an "irregular" appointment
and not an "illegal" one. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.2 was appointed after issuance of public
advertisement and due selection process by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The procedure adopted
by the Committee of Management satisfies the requirement of transparency and fairness and cannot be said
to be a back-door entry. (Para 17)

C. Long and continuous service gives rise to legitimate expectation and the State cannot act
arbitrarily in denying benefits. (Para 21)

The only ground for denial of salary is absence of sanctioned post and formal approval. The
petitioner No.2 has been continuously discharging duties on the post of Clerk since 08.11.2004 and the
respondents have not disputed the factum of work being taken from him. The ground of absence of
sanctioned post and formal approval, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the institution itself had moved
proposal for sanction of posts as far back as in the year 1998, followed by repeated reminders, but the
competent authority failed to take any decision. (Para 18)

The State, being a model employer, cannot take advantage of its own inaction and deny
legitimate dues to an employee who has been continuously serving the institution. The inaction on
the part of the respondents in not taking a decision on the proposal for sanction of posts for decades, despite
continuous requirement of clerical staff, clearly reflects arbitrariness. (Para 19)

D. Statute 18.03(4) - The approval is deemed to have been granted in absence of any decision
within the prescribed time. Once the papers relating to appointment were forwarded and no decision was
taken within time, the consequence of deemed approval would follow, entitling the petitioner to salary. (Para
20)

E. State cannot refuse to sanction posts indefinitely where the work is perennial in nature and
employees have been working for long years. It has been held that such refusal amounts to
arbitrariness and sanction of posts has been directed. (Para 23)

F. Non-payment of salary for work taken is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and amounts to exploitation. Where the employer has taken work from an employee for long years,
the State cannot deny salary on hyper-technical grounds. (Para 25)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2026) SCC Online SC 129 (Para 13)
2. Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghazaibad, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 (Para 13)
3. Jaggo Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (Para 13)
4. Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 (Para 13)
5. Virendra Kumar Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2025) 4 UPLBEC 2893 (Para 13)
6. State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education and others Vs. C/M Sri Sukhpal Intermediate College,
Tirhut, Sultanpur and others, Special Appeal Defective No.673 of 2014, decided on 12.05.2015 (Para 14)
1806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
 salary, payment, post, appointment, exploitation, sanction, delay, irregular, selection, service, constitution,
article 14.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Vivek Srivastava
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Ms. Radhika Singh, Advocate along with Ms. Richa Mishra, filed Vakalatnama on behalf of
petitioner No.2 today in Court. The same may be taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, Advocate along with Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava and Ms.
Richa Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 and Sri Devesh Mishra, learned Additional CSC
for the respondent - State.

3. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner No.1 has
been granted promotion to the higher post and petitioner No.3 has been granted fresh appointment,
therefore, she is representing petitioner No.2 only.

4. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer:

 "i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to make payment of salary to the petitioners regularly each and
every month including the arrear of salary with effect from 8.11.2004.

 ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners on the post of
clerk in any manner whatsoever.

 iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties nos.1 to 4 to formally sanction the post of clerk for payment of
salary to the petitioners.

 iv. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case may also be passed.

 v. Allow the writ petition with costs."

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner No.2 was granted appointment on
08.11.2004 under anticipation of sanction of post submitted by the committee of management. The
committee of management issued advertisement in widely circulated Times of India newspaper on
11.08.2004 and in local news paper on 17.08.2004 inviting applications from eligible and qualified
candidates for appointment on Class III post.
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1807
6. The petitioner along with other candidates submitted application for selection and
appointment on the post of Clerk. A selection committee was constituted who selected petitioner
No.2 by placing him at Sr. No.1 in the select list and in pursuance thereof, an appointment letter
was issued to him on 08.11.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner is continuously
discharging duties but no salary was paid to him from the State Exchequer.

7. Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences, Sultanpur is a recognized
institution and affiliated from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad. The Statute of
1978 as amended upto date is applicable to the said institution. The institution submitted a proposal
on 31.08.1998 before the Director of Higher Education for creation and sanction of necessary posts
including clerical staff, however, no decision was taken by the competent authority and a reminder
letter on 16.11.2002 was sent followed by correspondence dated 07.02.2004 but the matter remain
pending without any final decision.

8. Due to necessity arose to maintain proper functioning of the institution and in
consonance with requirement of Statute 18.03, the management of the institution proceeded to
initiate recruitment process by issuing an advertisement in the news papers in the year 2004 and
thereafter, a selection committee constituted selected petitioner including petitioner No.2 and he
was duly selected and appointed on the post of Clerk. The appointments were made strictly in
accordance with Statute 18.03(1) which mandates recruitment through advertisement and selection.

9. Papers in regard to selection and appointment of petitioner No.2 were duly submitted
before the Director, Higher Education for grant of approval and to release salary. Within prescribed
period as per provisions contained under Statute 18.03(4), the appointment of the petitioner was
deemed approved, therefore, he became entitled to get salary from State Exchequer.

10. Despite continuous service rendered by petitioner No.2 since 08.11.2004, respondents
have failed to ensure payment of salary on regular basis. The petitioner No.2 has also not been paid
arrears of salary w.e.f. 08.11.2004.

11. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under anticipation to sanction of
posts appointment of the petitioner was made and no order whatsoever has been passed to sanction
the post. The committee of management proceeded to make appointment under anticipation that the
post will be sanctioned and the petitioner was appointed on Class III post, therefore, there is no
justification in not paying salary to the petitioner No.2 from the State Exchequer.

12. She submitted that the institution in question was suffering a lot due to non availability
of sufficient number of employees, therefore, the committee of management made appointment
after following due procedure of law. The papers in regard to appointment of petitioner were duly
submitted before the Director, Higher Education, who also has not passed any order for grant of
approval as required under Statute 18.03(4), therefore, it is deemed approved in view of said
provision, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of payment of salary from the State
Exchequer.
1808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Her next submission is that action of the respondents in not paying salary to the
petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and not justifiable in law. In support of her submissions, she placed
reliance upon following judgments:

 a) Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand; (2026) SCC Online SC 129.

 b) Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghazaibad; 2025 SCC Online SC 221.

 c) Jaggo Vs. Union of India; 2024 SCC Online SC 3826.

 d) Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India; (2024) 9 SCC 327.

 e) Virendra Kumar Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2025) 4 UPLBEC 2893.

14. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC invited attention of this Court on paragraph
7 of the counter affidavit pointing out that there is no sanction post against which the petitioner has
claimed appointment and no approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner. In support
of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of State of U.P. through
Secretary, Secondary Education and others Vs. C/M Sri Sukhpal Intermediate College,
Tirhut, Sultanpur and others; Special Appeal Defective No.673 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2015,
wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that in absence of sanctioned post, direction cannot
be issued to ensure payment of salary to the employee.

15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.

16. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below:

 a) Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand (Supra):

 "6.7. that the appellants? long and uninterrupted service has given rise to a legitimate
expectation of consideration for regularization. It is contended that having diligently served for
over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection, the appellants justifiably believed that their
services would be regularized and that discontinuation at this stage would result in grave hardship.

 On the aforesaid grounds, the learned senior counsel urged this Court to set aside the
impugned judgments passed by the High Court, allow the present appeals, and issue appropriate
directions to the respondent-State for regularization of the services of the appellants.

 9.3. In the present case, the respondent-State has engaged the services of the appellants
for a period exceeding 10 years. Upon completion of this long tenure, the respondents, as
apprehended by the appellants, declined to grant any further extension on the ground that the
engagement was contractual in nature. Such a decision necessarily warrants examination on the
touchstone of the equality principles enshrined in the Constitution, which obligate the State to act
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1809
as a model employer and to take decisions free from arbitrariness. In our consideration of the
second issue, we shall examine whether non-interference with the impugned judgments would
result in substantial and grave injustice to the appellants.

 12.2. At this juncture, the analogy of apples and oranges serves as a useful reminder that
certain relationships are inherently incapable of being assessed on an equal plane. A contract
between the State and an employee stands on a similar footing. The State, in such a relationship,
assumes the role of a metaphorical lion, endowed with overwhelming authority, resources and
bargaining strength, whereas the employee, who is yet an aspirant, is reduced to the position of a
metaphorical lamb, possessing little real negotiating power. To suggest parity between the two, i.e.
the lion and the lamb, would be to ignore the stark imbalance that defines the relationship.

 12.3. Therefore, where a lion contracts with a lamb, the inequality is not incidental but
structural, and it is precisely this disproportion that calls for judicial sensitivity. In such situations,
the conscience of Constitutional Courts must inevitably tilt in favour of protecting the lamb. We
have no hesitation in holding that Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to act to safeguard those
who are vulnerable to exploitation, so that employees are not compelled to meekly submit to the
demands of a vastly dominant contracting party like the State, but are instead assured that
constitutional protections will intervene to prevent such exploitation.

 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
India10, 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.13.9. 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 parttime and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

 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."

b) Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghazaibad (Supra):

 "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over
several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not
produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records?despite directions to do so?allows
1810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is
permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year
after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of
indefinite ?temporary? employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v.
Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:

 "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector
entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.

 ........

 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:

 * Misuse of ?Temporary? Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as ?temporary? or
?contractual,? even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to,
despite performing identical tasks.

 * Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause
or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.

 * Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts,
despite their contributions being equally significant.

 * Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1811
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."

 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt
terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity
in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness : the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the
importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of
service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on
record."

c) Jaggo Vs. Union of India (Supra):

 " 7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature
of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had
functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been
assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's
offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced,
concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against
sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the
criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or
regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the
petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular
appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the
reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the
appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.

 8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us:

 (i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasize their long,
uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade?and in some instances, exceeding two decades.
They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to
the daily functioning of the respondent's offices.

 (ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities? such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and
other maintenance tasks?were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a
clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated
with regular posts.
1812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never
issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently
satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not
satisfactory or required improvement.

 (iv). Compliance with ?Uma Devi? Guidelines: The appellants assert that their
appointments were not ?illegal? but at most ?irregular.? Drawing on the principles laid down in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi4, they submit that long-serving employees in irregular
appointments?who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions?are entitled to consideration for
regularization.

 (v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with
fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying
them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment.

 (vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents'
reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier
and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that
retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many
years.

 (vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by
focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of
their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles
call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination

 9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on
behalf of the Respondents:

 (i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged
purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was
never intended to be permanent or full-time.

 (ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed
against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there
can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce.

 (iii). Non-Compliance with ?Uma Devi? Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the
conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a
part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.

 (iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants
were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1813
qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants
from being absorbed into regular service.

 (v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they
have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency.
This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and
cannot be interfered with by the courts.

 (vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that
no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a
vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal
entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition.

 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on
record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well
beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as parttime or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their
sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests
their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties
that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water
Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining
hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties
involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas?a set of
responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was
entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and
ensuring orderly surroundings.

 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 engage any other personnel for these tasks during the
appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to
penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly ?irregular,? and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a
fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was
1814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment
of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural formalities
cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed
?temporary? but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment
have been reproduced below:

 "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and
a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of
Uma Devi (supra).

 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between ?irregular?
and ?illegal? appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even
if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to
have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case??

 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants'
engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the
surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that
light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or
because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.

 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
4 All. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1815
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.

 " Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant
in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite
their contributions being equally significant.

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

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

 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."

d) Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India (Supra):

 "5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of
employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment
when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service
of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from
those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of
their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen
by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years
without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of
such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.

 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at
hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to
1816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .

 7. 7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] also distinguished between ?irregular? and ?illegal? appointments
underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in
accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if
they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations
or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42)

 "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments
(not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [State of Mysore v. S.V.
Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah,
(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v.