Amar Nath Vishwakarma vs Union Of India & Ors.

“i.

This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure No A-1)

ii.

This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to issue all the benefits of regular employee on strength of rule 154(A) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraph Department along with all consequential benefits of pay, promotion, financial upgradation etc as per rules.

iii.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

iv.

Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

“7.

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8.

The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within sixmonths of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

9.

These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10.

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one-time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of thesecases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

“8.

The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.

9.

If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.

10.

The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise – the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.

11.

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc.

12.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants.

13.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

14.

We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.”

“19.

Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

i.

Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effectfrom 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

ii.

Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall beso adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

iii.

Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.

iv.

Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.

v.

Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.”

“17.

In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services wereterminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.

18.

The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the dateof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were neverapplied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”

“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 longterm 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 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 itsprinciples 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.”

“The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of clause 4 of the Scheme. As already noticed, the scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:-

'temporary' status-(1) 'temporary' status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). "

Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of 'temporary' status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Some of the Central Administrative Tribunals took the view that this is an ongoing Scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get 'temporary' status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing Scheme. In order to acquire 'temporary' status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving 'temporary' status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given 'temporary' status and later they are to be absorbed in Group 'D' posts.

The second question that arises for consideration is whether the casual labourers who have been given 'temporary' status can be removed from service by giving notice as per clause 7 of the Scheme. It is true that by conferment of 'temporary' status, the casual labourers acquire certain rights. Their daily rates of wages will be on the pro rata basis of salary and allowances payable to the employees working under the Group 'D' posts. They are also eligible for the casual and other kinds of leave. Oncompletion of 3 years' continuous service after conferment of 'temporary' status, they would be admitted to the General Provident Fund. They are entitled to get Festival Advance and Flood Advance and other welfare measures applicable to the Group 'D' employees. Clause 7 of the Scheme makes it clear that despite the conferment of 'temporary' status, the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving one month notice in writing. This clause would certainly give the employer the right to terminate the services of casual labourers who have been given 'temporary' status.

The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition (CT) No. 86/99 (T. Rajakili and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., etc. etc.) held that Clause 7 must be read in a manner in which it does not render it unconstitutional. The employers cannot at their whims dispense with the services of the casual labourers who have acquired 'temporary' status. The entire object of 1993 Scheme was to regularise all casual workers. To allow such uncanalised power of termination would also defeat the object of the Scheme. Dispensing with the services of a casual labourer under clause 7 in our view, could be for mis-conduct etc. Having regard to the general scheme of 1993, we are also of the view that the casual labourers who acquire 'temporary' status cannot be removed merely on the whims and fancies of the employer. If there is sufficient work and other casual labourers are still to be employed by the employer for carrying out the work, the casual labourers who have acquired 'temporary' status shall not be removed from service as per clause 7 of the Scheme. If there is serious misconduct or violation of service rules, it would be open to the employer to dispense with the services of a casual labourer who had acquired the 'temporary' status.

In Civil Appeals Nos. 3170-3171, 3172-73, 3174-75 and 3180/2000 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6738-6739/2000, SLP (Civil) Nos. 6740-41 and 6742-43/2000 and SLP (Civil) No. 970/2001, the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta held that the termination of the services of the employees was not legal and was based on various extraneous grounds. We do not propose to interfere with the same.

In Civil Appeals Nos. 3168, 3182, 3179, 3176-78, 3169 of 2002 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2224/2000, SLP(Civil) No. 13024/2001, SLP(Civil) No. 1563/2001, SLP(Civil) No. 17174-17176/2000, SLP(Civil) No. 21517 2000, the respondents have been given 'temporary' status, even though, they did not specifically fulfil the condition in clause 4 of the Scheme. Some of them were engaged by the Department even after the commencement of the Scheme. But these casual labourers had also rendered service for more than one year and they were not given 'temporary' status pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. We do not propose to interfere with the same at this distance of time. However, we make it clear that the Scheme of 1.9.1993 is not an ongoing Scheme and the 'temporary' status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the Scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers in employment as on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e., at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a week). We also make it clear that those who have already been given 'temporary' status on the assumption that it is an ongoing Scheme shall not be stripped of the 'temporary' status pursuant to our decision. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”

“2.

The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the OA are that the applicant was, initially appointed as Full time C.P. Chaukidar in non-test category on 3.7.1970, against the sanctioned post and posted at Post Office Hadia, District.

2.1

The appointment of the applicant was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 154(a) of the Manual for Pay and Allowances to the officers of P & T Department.

2.2

In the year 1989, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided a case of Daily Rated Casual Labourers vs. Union of India and vide Order dated 29.11.1989 directed the respondents’ department to frame a scheme for grant of temporary status followed with regularization to those of casual labourers who has completed one year’s regular service with 240/206 working days in a calendar year.

2.3

Consequent to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents had introduced a Scheme dated 12.4.1991, known as “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme” to the effect that temporary status employee would be conferred on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one year and after rendering three years of service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for the purpose of contribution of General Provident Fund etc. The Scheme further provides that the casual labourers may be regularised in units, subject to availability of vacancies and no recruitment from open market for Group D’ post, except compassionate appointment will be done till such casual labourers are available to fill up the post in question. ---

10.

Thus, considering the case in hand and earlier case of Shyam Lal Shukla which was also affirmed by the Apex Court, it is not disputed that applicant was engaged as contingency paid chowkidar and was granted temporary status and respondents provides all the benefits to the applicant as admissible to regular Group D employees and applicant also retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. at the age of 60 years. He was also not granted pensionary and retiral benefits on the sole defence that vacancy was not available and he was not a regular employee. However, the applicant is entitled for the benefits under Rule 154 of the Manual of appointment and allowances. The Hon’ble High Court on perusal of the Rule 154 of the aforesaid manual in its judgment dated 23.12.2011 has held as follows:-

“From the perusal of Rule 154 A of Manual, it is manifestly clear that the Chowkidar, Sweeper, Mails, Khalasis who worked side by side with regular or with employees in work charge establishment should be brought on regular establishment and should be treated regular employees. The Rule itself has used the work ‘regular employee’ without any reference to formal order of regularization. The Tribunal has relied on Rule 154 A of the Manual of appointment and allowances of the officers of Indian Post and Telegraphs Department. It is, undisputed fact that the respondent no. 1 has worked and has received the payment from contingent fund w.e.f. 10.4.1982 to 26.11.1989 i.e. seven years six months and nineteen days, thereafter, from the consolidated fund of Central Govt. from 26.11.1989 to 29.11.1992 three years and then from 30.11.1992 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2003 as temporary Govt. employee of Group D for ten years seven months and one day. The total qualifying service for pension comes to 17 years four months and 10 days.”

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has further held as under:-

“In our view the said Rule clearly spells out its essential purpose to give pensionary benefit to certain class of employees as regular employee notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was passed.”

11.

Thus, relying upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in afore mentioned OAs and confirmed by the High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant is also entitled for similar benefits as granted to applicants of that O.As. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.”