# Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4247 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-chaubey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52652
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya

Issue for consideration
 Whether refusal to regularize services of eligible
long-term temporary employees on the ground
of financial constraint on employer (State) is
reasonable?

Headnotes
A. Labour Law - While creation of posts is
primarily
an
executive
function,
the
refusal to sanction posts cannot be
immune
from
judicial
scrutiny
for
arbitrariness. A non- speaking rejection on a
generic plea of "financial constraints", ignoring
functional necessity and the employer's own
longstanding reliance on daily wagers to
discharge regular duties, does not meet the
standard of reasonableness expected of a model
public institution. (Para 29)

Financial stringency certainly has a place
in public policy, but it is not a talisman
that overrides fairness, reason and the
duty to organise work on lawful lines. It
necessary to recall that the State is not mere a
market
participant
but
a
constitutional
employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work recurs
day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices.
The long-term extraction of regular labour under
temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. (Para 29)

The stand of the Development Authority, on one
hand, has been that they have requested the
Government for creation of supernumerary
posts to regularise the petitioners' services,
whereas, on the other, the State Government's
stand is that unless the Rules of 2016 are
adopted by the Board of the Development
Authority, it is not possible for the Government
to sanction those supernumerary posts, against
which, the petitioners could be regularised.
(Para 14)

B. The claim of the respondents is founded
on the Rules of 2016, where, the nature of
their employment is well within eligibility
for regularisation. The only clog, that has
kept the State Government from sanctioning
supernumerary posts to appoint the petitioners,
was the fact that the Rules of 2016 had not
been adopted by the Board of the Development
Authority, which pendente lite has been done on
16.04.2025. (Para 21)

The
State
Government
must
now,
therefore,
sanction
the
necessary
supernumerary posts to regularise the
petitioners. The petitioners have to their credit
35 years of long service, and, at least, 28 years
on the day when the writ petition was instituted.
It should be regarded as 35 years, because,
they are continuing in service without the aid of
interim orders. Given the fact that the number
of
supernumerary
posts
far
exceed
the
sanctioned posts in this case, the State
Government must spare a thought, bearing in
mind the perennial nature of work, to sanction
commensurate and adequate number of posts
to bring about regularity in the cadres of its
staff. (Para 30)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,814 of 67,109. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39814 for what follows._

10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
311
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 4247 of 2019

Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Gopal Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya

Issue for consideration
 Whether refusal to regularize services of eligible
long-term temporary employees on the ground
of financial constraint on employer (State) is
reasonable?

Headnotes
A. Labour Law - While creation of posts is
primarily
an
executive
function,
the
refusal to sanction posts cannot be
immune
from
judicial
scrutiny
for
arbitrariness. A non- speaking rejection on a
generic plea of "financial constraints", ignoring
functional necessity and the employer's own
longstanding reliance on daily wagers to
discharge regular duties, does not meet the
standard of reasonableness expected of a model
public institution. (Para 29)

Financial stringency certainly has a place
in public policy, but it is not a talisman
that overrides fairness, reason and the
duty to organise work on lawful lines. It
necessary to recall that the State is not mere a
market
participant
but
a
constitutional
employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work recurs
day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices.
The long-term extraction of regular labour under
temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. (Para 29)

The stand of the Development Authority, on one
hand, has been that they have requested the
Government for creation of supernumerary
posts to regularise the petitioners' services,
whereas, on the other, the State Government's
stand is that unless the Rules of 2016 are
adopted by the Board of the Development
Authority, it is not possible for the Government
to sanction those supernumerary posts, against
which, the petitioners could be regularised.
(Para 14)

B. The claim of the respondents is founded
on the Rules of 2016, where, the nature of
their employment is well within eligibility
for regularisation. The only clog, that has
kept the State Government from sanctioning
supernumerary posts to appoint the petitioners,
was the fact that the Rules of 2016 had not
been adopted by the Board of the Development
Authority, which pendente lite has been done on
16.04.2025. (Para 21)

The
State
Government
must
now,
therefore,
sanction
the
necessary
supernumerary posts to regularise the
petitioners. The petitioners have to their credit
35 years of long service, and, at least, 28 years
on the day when the writ petition was instituted.
It should be regarded as 35 years, because,
they are continuing in service without the aid of
interim orders. Given the fact that the number
of
supernumerary
posts
far
exceed
the
sanctioned posts in this case, the State
Government must spare a thought, bearing in
mind the perennial nature of work, to sanction
commensurate and adequate number of posts
to bring about regularity in the cadres of its
staff. (Para 30)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs.
Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Para 18)
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J. Pathan
and others, (2022) 5 SCC 394 (Para 18)
3. Jaggo Vs. Union of India and another, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826 (Para 23)
4. Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 (Para 26)
5. Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (Para
28)

List of Acts
 The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons
Working of Daily Wages or on Work Charge or
on Contract in Government Departments on
Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the
Purview of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission) Rules, 2016.

List of Keywords
 regularization,
temporary,
part-time,
daily
wager, arbitrary, termination.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Misra
For Respondent: Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition has been filed by
five men working as Class IV employees in
the
establishment
of
the
Meerut
Development Authority, Meerut1, seeking a
mandamus to the respondents to regularise
their services in accordance with a
Government Order2 dated 13.08.2025.

2. The petitioners say that they are
work
ing
continuously
with
the
Development Authority since the year
1991. The precise date of their engagement
with the Development Authority and the
nature of work done by them is depicted in
tabular form below :

Sr.
No
.
Name of
Petitione
r
Nature
of
Work
Date
of
Employmen
t
1
Virendra
Kumar
Chaubey
Mate
01.07.1991
2
Rajkumar
Sharma
Mate
01.07.1991
3
Gaya
Prasad
Mate
01.07.1991
4
Chandra
Prakash
Mate
01.11.1991
5
Zaheer
Ahmad
Gardene
r
(Maali)
08.08.1991

3. The petitioners say that reckoned
from the date of their engagement, they
have been continuously working with the
Development
Authority,
doing
their
respective jobs for the last 28 years. It is
the petitioner's case that they have learnt
from reliable sources that the daily
wagers/work-charged employees and those
hired on contract in similar positions like
them by other development authorities have
been regularised, but the petitioners are still
continuing as daily wagers, despite lapse of
a period of 28 years. In particular, the
petitioners
rely
upon
a
GO
dated
13.08.2025 issued in regard to employees
working with development authorities,
corporations, local bodies, autonomous
bodies, who were appointed prior to
31.03.1996. The GO directed regularisation
of their services, subject to certain
conditions. These conditions would be
alluded to later in this judgment.

4.
The
petitioners
say
that
in
compliance with the GO last mentioned,
the Secretary, Urban Housing Welfare and
Development
asked
for
details
of
employees working on daily wages with
the Development Authority. In response,
some details were sent by the Development
Authority to the aforesaid Secretary to the
Government vide letter dated 04.11.2015,
10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
313
where, names of all the petitioners find
mention. A similar letter was sent again by
the Secretary aforesaid to the Development
Authority on 08.01.2016. This letter too
was
answered
by
the
Development
Authority. In answer to the Secretary, by a
letter dated 21.01.2016, it was said that the
necessary particulars have been furnished
earlier. The matter was pursued then on
behalf of the Employees' Union, seeking
regularisation of the twelve daily wagers,
including the petitioners, by a letter of the
President of the Union addressed to the
Vice Chairman of Development Authority.

5. On 27.07.2016, a meeting was held
to consider regularisation of daily wagers
in different development authorities by the
Government, regarding which, a memo
dated 21.07.2016 was issued by a Deputy
Secretary to the Government, addressed to
the Chairman of various development
authorities, including the Development
Authority. Nothing came out of it,
according to the petitioners.

6. The petitioners say that in the
meantime, a new GO was issued, by which,
names of daily wagers working from
31.03.1996 to 31.12.2001 were also called
for by the Government from various
development authorities. In response to the
subsequent
GO,
the
Development
Authority
again
sent
names
of
the
petitioners, clarifying that these men have
been working much before 31.03.1996 and
their names have already been sent for
regularisation, but nothing done. The long
engagement of the petitioners, which was
28 years on the date when this writ petition
was instituted, and by now, a period of 35
years,
is
telltale
of
the
fact
that
notwithstanding the absence of a formal
sanction of posts, the work done by the
petitioners were of a permanent and
perennial
nature.
By
the
petitioners'
retention in service, all their useful years
have been spent in the service of the
Development Authority. To deny them
regularisation at this juncture would be a
violation of their rights under Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution. They are all
overage for employment elsewhere.

7. A notice of motion was issued in
this writ petition on 15.03.2019. In course
of time, parties have exchanged affidavits
in plenty, including a personal affidavit by
the
Chairman
of
the
Development
Authority.

8. In the first of the counter affidavits
filed by the Chairman of the Development
Authority, the position, for a fact is not
disputed that the petitioners have been
engaged on daily wage basis since the
various dates in the year 1991 and that they
are
continuously
working
on
their
respective assignments. They are working
sans posts, because, there are none. The
respondents say that they have written to
the
Government
to
sanction
twelve
supernumerary
posts
for
employees
similarly circumstanced, including the
petitioners, but the Government have not
done that. Vide GO dated 13.08.2015,
regularisation
of
daily
wagers/workcharged
employees
appointed
till
31.03.1996 has been directed as against
vacant posts or supernumerary posts
created by the Government. It is added that
at present, the Government does not have
vacant posts or supernumerary posts to
regularise the services of the petitioners.

9. In the rejoinder affidavit, that was
initially filed, the petitioners took a stand
that they were entitled to regularisation in
terms of the Rules of 2016 and referred to a
further GO of 09.07.2021 addressed by a
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretary to the Government to the Vice
Chairman of the Development Authority.
The services of Class IV employees
working since before 31.12.2001 were to
be
regularised
under
rules,
whether
engaged on daily wages or contract. It was
also pointed out that this GO indicated that
in case there were no posts, supernumerary
posts would be created for the purpose by
the Government. The other affidavits and
how the controversy narrowed down a bit
during the course of hearing to the extent
relevant shall be alluded to later.

10. The parties having exchanged
affidavits, as already remarked, this petition
was admitted to hearing on 19.07.2023,
which proceeded across various dates.
Considering the stand of parties, some
further affidavits were permitted to be filed
during the course of hearing, since there are
developments supervening.

11. Heard Mr. Gopal Misra, learned
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jagan
Nath Maurya, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Meerut Development
Authority.

12. We have already noticed the stand
taken by the Development Authority and
the petitioners' case in sufficient detail,
while delineating the case of parties.

13. It would be apposite now to notice
the stand of the Government, which has
been disclosed earliest in the counter
affidavit dated 14.01.2020 filed on behalf
of the State. In the counter affidavit filed by
an Under Secretary to the Government of
Uttar Pradesh in the Department of
Housing and Urban Planing Department,
on the date last mentioned, it is said that by
a GO of 13.08.2015, it was provided that
the employees engaged until 31.03.1996 on
a daily wage, work-charge or contract
basis, who have the prescribed eligibility to
be recruited and were working at present,
to wit, on 13.08.2015, shall be regularised
against available vacancies, and if no
vacancy was available, on supernumerary
posts. Bearing in mind the GO dated
13.08.2015, approval of the Finance
Department was received for regularisation
of the petitioners' services on 26.10.2016,
and thereafter, Hon'ble The Chief Minister
directed the State Authorities to proceed in
accordance with the opinion of the Finance
Department. The Finance Department, in
their noting for creation of supernumerary
posts
made
a
comment
that
for
regularisation of services of daily wagers
and
work-charged
employees,
the
Department of Personnel had already
framed rules, which were adopted by the
State and formally framed by the Governor,
in exercise of powers under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules
are
called
"The
Uttar
Pradesh
Regularisation of Persons Working of
Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on
Contract in Government Departments on
Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the
Purview of The Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission) Rules, 20163. The
stand further is that these rules, which
proprio vigore apply to the Government
and its departments, had to be adopted by
autonomous bodies, Nigam, Boards etc.,
but the Board of the Development
Authority had, till date, not adopted the
aforesaid rules. It was on account of nonadoption of the Rules of 2016 that creation
of supernumerary posts for the petitioners
was in limbo, but still under consideration,
awaiting
that
adoption.
This
is,
in
substance,
the
stand
of
the
State
Government.

14. The stand of the Development
Authority, on one hand, has been that they
10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
315
have requested the Government for creation
of supernumerary posts to regularise the
petitioners' services, whereas, on the other,
the State Government's stand is that unless
the Rules of 2016 are adopted by the Board
of the Development Authority, it is not
possible for the Government to sanction
those supernumerary posts, against which,
the petitioners could be regularised.

15. The affidavits, that have been filed
during hearing, have been a tug-of-war
between the State Government and the
Development Authority on the issue
indicated above. Happily, in the last
affidavit that was filed on behalf of the
petitioners,
being
an
affidavit
dated
18.05.2025, it is indicated that the Board of
the Development Authority, vide resolution
dated 16.04.2025, have adopted the Rules
of 2016. A copy of the Development
Authority's resolution passed by the Board
in their 128th meeting dated 16.04.2025
(relevant part) reads :

1
मेरठ
विकास
प्राचिकरण
में
अकेन्द्र नयत सेिा के
समूह "ग" एिं "घ" के
पिों पर िैननक िेतन
या िकाचाजा संवििा पर
काया कर रहे व्यजक्तयों
के
विननयलमतीकरण
हेतु
ननयमािि -2016
को अंगीकृत ककये जाने
हेतु प्रस्ताि।
मा0
बोडा
द्िारा
विननयलमतीकरण
ननयमािि -2016
अचिसूचना
संख्या-
9/2016/2/1/97/का-
2/2016
दिनांक
12.09.2016
को
अंगीकृत ककये जाने
का
ननणाय
लिया
गया।

16. This affidavit was filed when the
matter had to be posted for further hearing
to seek clarification on a certain point.

17. Mr. Jagan Nath Maurya, learned
Counsel appearing for the Development
Authority did not dispute the fact that this
resolution had been adopted by the
Development
Authority.
There
is
apparently no impediment now for the
Government in sanctioning supernumerary
posts for the petitioners, against which,
their services can then be regularised by the
Development Authority. Mr. Maurya has,
nevertheless, certain reservations, because
he says that they would be saddled with
extra financial burden, that would fall upon
their shoulders, bearing in mind the GO
dated 13.08.2015. We do not know if that
will happen, once the posts are sanctioned,
may be supernumerary. But, it is a matter
that can be dealt with between the
Development Authority and the State
Government, which is not primarily our
concern. Our concern is that the State
Government
can
now
sanction
supernumerary posts, which they must do,
going by their own stand in paragraph no. 3
of the counter affidavit dated 14.01.2020.
They cannot resile from it now.

18.
On
the
generality
of
the
petitioners' right to be regularised in
service, Mr. Maurya impressed upon this
Court that the petitioners did not have a
right to be regularised, and doing that,
militates against the principle of equality
enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Certainly, equality of
opportunity
in
matters
of
public
employment for all citizens is a principle
that inspired the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others v. Uma Devi and others4 The
Constitution Bench too made a distinction
between illegally and irregularly appointed
persons, who had continued in service for
long. Their Lordships provided that the
Union of India and the State Governments
as well as their instrumentalities to take
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
steps as a one-time measure to regularise
services of those irregularly appointed, who
had continued for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts, but not under orders of
the Court or Tribunals. Here, reference may
be made to the authority of the Supreme
Court in State of Gujarat and others v.
R.J. Pathan and others5, upon which Mr.
Maurya placed heavy reliance. In that case,
despite the employees continuing for a
period of 17 years, the order of the Division
Bench directing a consideration of the
employee's
case
for
regularisation
sympathetically and, if necessary, by
creating supernumerary posts, was set aside
by their Lordships upon an appeal by the
State of Gujarat. The following remarks of
the Supreme Court in R.J. Pathan (supra)
may be referred to :

6. At the outset, it is required to
be noted that the respondents herein -
original writ petitioners were, as such,
appointed in a temporary project, which
was created only for the purpose of
rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for
"Post-Earthquake
Redevelopment
Programme". All of them were initially
appointed for a period of eleven months on
a fixed salary, which came to be continued
from time to time till the requirement in a
particular
project/unit
-
"Project
Implementation Unit". However, as the said
unit was required to be closed which, as
such, was a temporary unit, instead of
putting an end to the services of the
respondents, the State Government thought
it fit to transfer and place them with the
Indian Red Cross Society. At this stage, the
respondents approached the High Court and
challenged their placement with the Indian
Red Cross Society.

8. The order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition was in the year 2011. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge was
challenged by the respondents by way of
LPA. In the year 2011, the Division Bench
granted the interim relief and directed to
maintain status quo and pursuant to the said
interim
order,
the
respondents
were
continued in service with the Government.
In the year 2021, when the said LPA was
taken up for further hearing, it was
submitted on behalf of the respondents that
as by now the respondents have worked for
seventeen years, the State may be directed
to absorb them in the Government and their
services may be regularised.

9. By observing that as the
respondents have worked for a long time
i.e. for seventeen years, the Division Bench
has directed the State to consider the cases
of
the
respondents
for
absorption/regularisation and if required,
by creating supernumerary posts. However,
while issuing such a direction, the High
Court has not at all considered the fact that
the respondents were continued in service
pursuant to the interim order passed by the
High Court.

10. The Division Bench has also
not appreciated the fact and/or considered
the fact that the respondents were initially
appointed for a period of eleven months
and on a fixed salary and that too, in a
temporary unit - "Project Implementation
Unit", which was created only for the
purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the
earthquake
for
"Post-Earthquake
Redevelopment Programme". Therefore,
the unit in which the respondents were
appointed was itself a temporary unit and
not a regular establishment. The posts on
which the respondents were appointed and
working were not the sanctioned posts in
any
regular
establishment
of
the
Government.
10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
317

11.
Therefore,
when
the
respondents were appointed on a fixed term
and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit
which was created for a particular project,
no such direction could have been issued
by the Division Bench of the High Court to
absorb them in Government service and to
regularise their services. The High Court
has observed that even while absorbing
and/or regularising the services of the
respondents, the State Government may
create
supernumerary
posts.
Such
a
direction to create supernumerary posts is
unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly
without jurisdiction. No such direction can
be
issued
by
the
High
Court
for
absorption/regularisation of the employees
who were appointed in a temporary unit
which was created for a particular project
and that too, by creating supernumerary
posts.

12. From the impugned judgment
and
order
[R.J.
Pathan
Project
Implementation Unit v. State of Gujarat,
2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2467] passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, it
appears that what has weighed with the
High Court was that the respondents were
continued in service for a long time i.e.
seventeen years. However, the High Court
has not considered that out of seventeen
years, the respondents continued in service
for ten years pursuant to the interim order
passed by the High Court. Therefore, even
considering the decision of this Court in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] , the period for which the
employees have continued in service
pursuant to the interim order is to be
excluded and not to be counted. The High
Court has totally missed the aforesaid
aspect.

13. Now, so far as the reliance
placed upon the decision of this Court in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] and the subsequent decision of
this Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari
[Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2
SCC (L&S) 472] , relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents is concerned, none of the
aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand. 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, (1)
to prevent irregular or illegal appointments
in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on
those who had been irregularly appointed
in the past and who have continued for a
very long time. The decision of Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
may be applicable in a case where the
appointments
are
irregular
on
the
sanctioned posts in regular establishment.
The same does not apply to temporary
appointments
made
in
a
project/programme.

19. The facts in R.J. Pathan would
show that the employees were appointed in
a temporary project set up for the purpose
of rehabilitation in the aftermath of an
earthquake. Also, the employees in that
case had continued in service for the most
part after their writ petition was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge under interim
orders of the Division Bench made in the
Letters Patent Appeal.

20. Here, the position is entirely
different. This is not the case of a fixedterm appointment in a temporary project or
a continuous service under judicial orders,
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interim in nature. Rather, the tenor of
pleadings, that have come from the
Development Authority, says that they
have themselves felt the need to regularise
services of the petitioners, but could not do
so in the absence of supenumerary posts
being sanctioned by the Government. It is
nobody's case that the petitioners have been
illegally appointed. It is true that there were
no
posts
against
which
they
were
appointed. But, that issue has been
answered in later authorities of the
Supreme Court, that we would presently
notice. They have worked for 35 years - 28
years on the date of institution of the writ
petition, if one were to peg their rights on
the date the cause of action arose. It must
be noticed that there are no interim orders
made in this writ petition, permitting them
to continue in service.

21. In addition, the claim of the
respondents is founded on the Rules of
2016,
where,
the
nature
of
their
employment is well within eligibility for
regularisation. The only clog, that has kept
the State Government from sanctioning
supernumerary
posts
to
appoint
the
petitioners, was the fact that the Rules of
2016 had not been adopted by the Board of
the
Development
Authority,
which
pendente lite has been done on 16.04.2025.

22. In the circumstances, we are of
opinion that all that has been held in R.J.
Pathan
would
not
come
to
the
Development Authority's rescue in this
case.

23. The point involved in this petition,
in our opinion, has already received
attention of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v.
Union of India and another6. The relevant
facts in Jaggo (supra) may be noticed from
the report of their Lordships' judgment,
which reads :

4. The appellants before this
Court, being Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5
before
the
Tribunal,
were
originally
engaged by the Central Water Commission
on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No. 1
was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993,
Applicant No. 2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and
Applicant No. 3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All
three
were primarily
responsible for
cleaning
and
maintaining
the
office
premises under the CWC. Applicant No. 5,
appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi (also
discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi),
was entrusted with tasks such as gardening,
dusting, and other ancillary maintenance
work. Throughout their engagement, these
individuals
performed
essential
housekeeping and support functions at
CWC establishments, including its offices
at Faridabad, ensuring daily upkeep and
contributing to the smooth functioning of
the
Commission's
administrative
operations.

5. Initially, the appellants sought
regularization of their services by filing
Original Application No. 2211/2015 before
the Tribunal. They contended that over the
years, their roles and responsibilities had
evolved beyond the nominal labels of "parttime" or "contractual" and that they were
performing ongoing and core functions
integral to the CWC's operations. They
relied
on
applicable
government
instructions and the principle that longserving employees, engaged against work
of
a
perennial
nature,
deserve
fair
consideration for regularization, provided
their appointments were not illegal or
clandestine. The Tribunal, by its order
dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants'
plea. It concluded that the appellants were
not engaged on what it considered "regular
vacancies," that they had not completed
what it termed as sufficient "full-time"
10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
319
service (such as meeting a 240-days per
year criterion), and that their case did not
attract
the
principles
enabling
regularization. Within ten days after the
dismissal of the original application, on
17.04.2018, the services of all these
individuals were abruptly terminated on
27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities
without issuance of any show-cause notice.

.....

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 Devi
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. .....

24. On these facts, it was held in
Jaggo :

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
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks during the
appellants'
tenure,
underscoring
the
indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents
that these were not regular posts lacks
merit, as the nature of the work performed
by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the
offices. The recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular
posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of
these same tasks to private agencies after
the appellants' termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one
set of workers with another, further
underscores that the work in question was
neither temporary nor occasional.

.....

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 initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this
Court inVinod Kumarv. 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. 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..."

22. The pervasive misuse of
temporary
employment
contracts,
as
10 All. Virendra Kumar Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
321
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.

.....

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.

25. In Jaggo, the Supreme Court
quashed the orders of termination, that
were in issue and directed reinstatement of
the employees, together with regularisation
in service.

26. In Shripal and another v. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad7, the facts leading to
the appeal before their Lordships of the
Supreme Court can best be noticed the way
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
these have been described in the report of
the judgment. It reads :

3. The factual matrix leading up
to the appeal before us is as follows:

3.1. The Appellant Workmen
claim to have been engaged as Gardeners
(Malis) in the Horticulture Department of
the
Respondent
Employer,
Ghaziabad
Nagar Nigam, since the year 1998 (in some
instances, since 1999). According to them,
they continuously discharged horticultural
and maintenance duties- such as planting
trees, maintaining parks, and beautifying
public spaces-under the direct supervision
of the Respondent Employer. They further
allege that no formal appointment letters
were ever issued to them, and that they
were persistently denied minimum wages,
weekly offs, national holidays, and other
statutory benefits.

3.2. In 2004, the Appellant
Workmen, along with many other similarly
situated employees, raised an industrial
dispute (C.B. Case No. 6 of 2004) before
the Conciliation Officer at Ghaziabad,
seeking regularization of their services and
the requisite statutory benefits. They
contend that, upon learning of this demand,
the Respondent Employer began delaying
their salaries and subjected them to adverse
working conditions. Eventually, around
mid-July 2005, the services of numerous
workmen were allegedly terminated orally,
without any notice, written orders, or
retrenchment compensation.

3.3. Since the above termination
took place during the pendency of the
conciliation proceedings, the Appellant
Workmen argue it violated Section 6E of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Consequently,
the
State
Government
referred the disputes concerning both (i)
regularization and (ii) legality of the
alleged termination, to the Labour Court,
Ghaziabad for adjudication.

3.4. The Labour Court proceeded
to decide the references vide two orders:

(i) Order dated 03.06.2011 : In
numerous
adjudication
cases
(e.g.,
Adjudication Case Nos. 448, 451, 467 of
2006, etc.), the Labour Court passed
awards holding the terminations illegal for
want of compliance with Section 6N of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and
directed reinstatement with 30% back
wages.

(ii) Order dated 11.10.2011 :
However, in about 41 other adjudication
cases (e.g., Adjudication Case Nos. 269,
270, 272, etc.), the Labour Court arrived at
a contrary conclusion, dismissing the
claims on the finding that the concerned
workmen had not been engaged directly by
the Nagar Nigam but rather through a
contractor, and hence had no enforceable
right to reinstatement or regularization
against the Respondent Employer.

3.5.