# Ras Bihari Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7683 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ras-bihari-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54552
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Regularisation of Persons Working on
Daily Wages or on Work-charge or on
Contract in Government on Group 'C' and
Group 'D' Posts (Outside Purview of the
U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules,
2016 - Group 'D' employee engaged on
contractual basis - Denial of regularisation
on
technical
grounds
-
Held,
impermissible - Employer is a model
employer
-
Has
to
act
fairly
-
Nomenclature not determinative - Nature
of
work,
continuity
of
service,
and
perennial need to be considered - Writ
petition allowed.

B.
Service
Law
-
Regularisation
-
Petitioner,
a
Group-D
multipurpose
employee engaged on contractual basis,
had discharged various duties assigned to
him without interruption. His claim for
regularisation was declined on the ground
that he did not possess the technical
qualification for appointment as Pump
Operator and was a contractual employee.
Held : Denial of regularisation on such
technical grounds amounted to unfair
labour practice. Court emphasized that the
real nature of employment must be
determined
by
lifting
the
veil
and
examining the duties performed, duration
of service, and the ongoing need for such
services. Court further observed that
multipurpose employees, who perform
diverse tasks under the direction of the
employer, cannot be denied regularisation
solely due to the absence of qualification
for one specific role, particularly when
they are willing to be appointed to other
Group-D
posts
for
which
they
are
otherwise
eligible.
Respondents
were
directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularisation in Group-D
category . (Para 8, 11, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jaggo
Vs
U.O.I.
&
ors.
reported
at
MANU/SC/1403/2024

## Text

3 All. Ras Bihari Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187
३१. अर्ः सिी यचिकाएां बलह न होने
के कारर् निरस्ि की िार्ी है।
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 187
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 7683 of 2021

Ras Bihari Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Awadh Behari Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., MJ Akhtar

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Regularisation of Persons Working on
Daily Wages or on Work-charge or on
Contract in Government on Group 'C' and
Group 'D' Posts (Outside Purview of the
U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules,
2016 - Group 'D' employee engaged on
contractual basis - Denial of regularisation
on
technical
grounds
-
Held,
impermissible - Employer is a model
employer
-
Has
to
act
fairly
-
Nomenclature not determinative - Nature
of
work,
continuity
of
service,
and
perennial need to be considered - Writ
petition allowed.

B.
Service
Law
-
Regularisation
-
Petitioner,
a
Group-D
multipurpose
employee engaged on contractual basis,
had discharged various duties assigned to
him without interruption. His claim for
regularisation was declined on the ground
that he did not possess the technical
qualification for appointment as Pump
Operator and was a contractual employee.
Held : Denial of regularisation on such
technical grounds amounted to unfair
labour practice. Court emphasized that the
real nature of employment must be
determined
by
lifting
the
veil
and
examining the duties performed, duration
of service, and the ongoing need for such
services. Court further observed that
multipurpose employees, who perform
diverse tasks under the direction of the
employer, cannot be denied regularisation
solely due to the absence of qualification
for one specific role, particularly when
they are willing to be appointed to other
Group-D
posts
for
which
they
are
otherwise
eligible.
Respondents
were
directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularisation in Group-D
category . (Para 8, 11, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jaggo
Vs
U.O.I.
&
ors.
reported
at
MANU/SC/1403/2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.J.
Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

2. By the impugned order the claim
of regularization of the petitioner as ClassIV employee has been declined solely on
the footing that he does not possess the
qualification of pump operator.

3. Petitioner was initially appointed
as pump operator on 15.05.1995 in the
respondent
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
Kushinagar. The petitioner was appointed
on Class-IV post, and has been discharging
duties of different categories of Class-IV
employees
like
Safai
Nayak.
The
respondents in their counter affidavit as
admitted to the fact that the petitioner is a
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Group-D employee engaged on contractual
basis. According to the counter affidavit
different kinds of duties were being
discharged by the petitioner as per the work
assigned to him by respondent no. 4. A
Group-D employee has to perform different
roles as per the direction of the employer.

4. Undisputedly the petitioner has
been functioning continuously without
interruption
from
the
date
of
his
appointment.
He
is
a
multi-purpose
employee under the Group-D category.

5. Even as per the stand of the
respondents Group D employees who are
appointed on contract are multipurpose
employees. The said class of employees
can be detailed for a variety of jobs by the
employer as per departmental needs. In fact
the concept of multipurpose employees
entails that the said pool of employees can
perform multifarious tasks or sundry jobs
and may not be restricted to a particular
kind of work or only be confined to a
specific duty. The said employees to cannot
refuse to perform such duties as
may be assigned by the employer.

6. The claim of the petitioner for
regularisation is being made on the strength
of rights vested in daily wage employees
under the U.P. Regularisation of Persons
Working on Daily Wages or on Workcharge or on Contract in Government on
Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside
Purview of the U.P. Public Service
Commission) Rules, 2016. The petitioner
satisfies the criteria for regularisation as
contemplated in the said Regularisation
Rules,
2016
and
is
entitled
for
regularisation under the said Rules.

7. The counter affidavit discloses
that minimum eligibility qualifications for
being appointed as regular pump operator
includes technical qualifications. As per the
stand of the respondents the petitioner does
not
possess
the
aforesaid
technical
qualifications
and
hence
cannot
be
regularized on the post of pump operator.

8. In case the petitioner does not
possess the aforesaid qualifications he may
not be appointed as a pump operator.
However, this fact does not in any manner
dilute his claim to be appointed on other
posts in the Group-D category for which he
is qualified. The eligibility of petitioner for
regularisation on a Group-D post for which
possesses the qualification has already been
affirmed in the preceding part of the
discussion. Moreover, the petitioner before
this Court has unequivocally stated that he
is prepared to join any post under the
Group-D category and shall perform any
other duties as may be assigned to him by
the employer.

9. Continuance of the petitioner on
the Group-D post attests the fact that the
need of the department is perennial in
nature. The respondents have admitted that
there
are
vacant
posts
of
Group-D
employees under different categories.

10. The denial of regularisation by
the impugned order by resorting to highly
technical grounds is an unfair practice
adopted by a model employer. The said
practice amounts to exploitation of the
employees which cannot be countenanced
by this Court.

11. The other ground of non suiting
the claim of the petitioner for regularization
is that he is a contractual employee. The
law is alert to various devices adopted by
employers to deprive class D employees of
their rights, and the Courts have set their
3 All. Ras Bihari Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
face against any exploitative practice
adopted by a State employer. In such cases
the
Court
has
to
go
beyond
the
nomenclature of the appointment by tearing
the veil. The Court may examine the nature
of duties performed by an employee, length
of service and other relevant factors (if any)
in the facts and circumstances of a case. In
light of such enquiry the Court may
determine the nature of employment and
the rights of the employee.The discussion
has the benefit of authorities.

12. The Supreme Court in Jaggo
Vs Union of India and others reported at
MANU/SC/1403/2024
noticed
the
consequences of misclassifying employees
to circumvent providing benefits. The
relevant paras are quoted hereunder:

24. The landmark judgement of
the United State in the case of Vizcaino v.
Microsoft
Corporation4
serves
as
a
pertinent example from the private sector,
illustrating
the
consequences
of
misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent
contractors,
thereby
denying
them
employee benefits. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined
that these workers were, in fact, commonlaw employees and were entitled to the
same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have
increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary
employees
or
independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment
of employee benefits, thereby increasing
their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work
performed, rather than the label assigned to
the worker, should determine employment
status and the corresponding rights and
benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in
rectifying
such
misclassifications
and
ensuring
that
workers
receive
fair
treatment.
 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 shortterm
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
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
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.?

13. The case of the petitioner is
clearly covered by the holding of the
Supreme Court. Responsibility is cast on the
respondents to implement the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs Union of
India (supra).

14. The impugned order dated
12.03.2021 is liable to be set aside and is set
aside.

15. The respondents are directed to
pass
appropriate
orders
directing
regularisation of the petitioner as per the
seniority list of Group-D post who have
been engaged on daily wages/contract basis
within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
3 All. Jagmohan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
191
(2025) 3 ILRA 191
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 11524 of 2024

Jagmohan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arvind
Kumar,
Bansh
Narayan
Vishwakarma, Sharda Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings
challenged
and
imposition
of
major
penalty - Invalid Inquiry - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7,13 - Failure
to hold oral inquiry and prove charges by
evidence -U.P. Civil Services Regulations -
Article
351-A
-
post-retirement
disciplinary action - against a government
servant - U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act,
1976 - Section 4 - remedy before Tribunal
- In all major penalty matters, charges
have to be proved by production of
evidence in the first instance by the
employer - Inquiry Officer cannot return
findings by merely reading the chargesheet and the reply of the charge-sheeted
employee;
evidence,
both
oral
and
documentary, must be produced by the
establishment
and
witnesses
crossexamined - Departmental inquiry must
strictly follow the procedure laid down in
Rule 7; failure to do so vitiates the entire
proceedings - Non-consideration of Article
351-A renders denial of emoluments
legally vulnerable. (Para -2,10,13,35)

Petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him - earlier remanded for de
novo inquiry by Tribunal - Inquiry Officer failed
to fix date, time, and place for inquiry - No oral
evidence was led by establishment - No
opportunity given to petitioner to cross-examine
witnesses - Inquiry Officer erroneously assumed
that charges stood proved based on documents
and petitioner's reply alone - Inquiry Officer
was bound to require establishment to prove
charges by leading oral and documentary
evidence - Breach of Rule 7 of the U.P.
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999 - Violated salutary principles of
natural justice - Disciplinary authority passed
order of reduction to basic pay - later amended
to denial of salary for dismissal period as
petitioner
retired
during
pendency
of
proceedings.(Paras 24 to 32)

HELD: - After retirement, only the Governor
had the authority to impose punishment under
Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
Punishment imposed was not permissible either
under Rule 3 of Rules of 1999 or under Article
351-A. Respondents were held incompetent to
pass any punitive order based on a flawed
inquiry report. Fresh inquiry could be held only
in accordance with Rule 7 and salutary
principles. Any punishment, if warranted, could
only be imposed by the Governor under Article
351-A. impugned orders were quashed. (Para
-33 to 37)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772

2. Radhey Kant Khare Vs U.P.Corp. Sugar
Factories Federation Ltd., 2003(21) LCD 610

3. Roop Singh Negi Vs P.N.B., (2009) 2 SCC 570

4. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 236

5. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3325

6. St. of U.P. Vs Kishori Lal, 2018 (9) ADJ 397
(DB)