Santosh Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors.

“Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon‟ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the Order dated 09.08.2019 under Annexure-11 and may direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for regularize the service of the petitioner and financial benefits treating him at par with one Anam Charan Nayak against the substantive vacancy of Class-III available in Shailabala Women‟s Autonomous College, Kataka and forthwith or within time to be stipulated by this Hon‟ble Court.

And pass any other order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.

And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.”

The facts:

“With reference to the letter and subject cited above, I want to inform you that the following private persons have been engaged in this college for a long time on a simple consolidated remuneration on a truly temporary basis drawing monthly remuneration from both the Self-Finance (Computer Science and IT) and College Development Fund.

A) Self Finance Fund (Computer Science & Information Technology) Department

i.

Sri Santosh Patra, Laboratory Attendant, Computer Science.

ii.

Sri Anama Charan Nayak, Night Watchman, Computer Science & Information Technology Attendant, SAMS Lab.

iii.

Sri Manoj Sahoo, Laboratory Attendant, Information Technology-cum-Day Watchman, Information Technology & Post-Graduation Department of History.

B) College Development Fund

i.

Sri Basant Kumar Barik, Day Watchman

working at the Main Gate of Arts Block.

ii.

Sri Suvendu Kumar Behura, Day Watchman working at the Main Gate of Science Block.

Apart from their normal work at the concerned Departments and College gates and inside the Campus, they also help in conducting admission work, College/ University/Council and Public examinations, works in the hostels and other works assigned to them from time to time. Their works have been satisfactory and they help in the smooth functioning of the administration of the college.

Under the above mentioned circumstances I may kindly be permitted to bring their engagement under daily wage basis maintaining the status quo of drawal of remuneration, not less than the present prescribed rates of the Labour & Employment Department, from the above two heads (Self-Finance Fund & College Development Fund) from which they are drawing their monthly remuneration, observing the prescribed guidelines as suggested.”

“On perusal of the records it is evident from the certificates issued by the Principal and Superintendent of S.B. Women‟s College that the applicant was initially engaged as Day Watchman since 1988 and thereafter engaged as Night-watchman-cum-Jhadudar in Computer Science Department and Information Technology by the Office Order No.1155 dated 20.6.2008 of the Principal of the College (Annexure-2 series). In the above backdrop, it is concluded that the applicant has continued as casual worker being entrusted with different duties of a Class IV employee for more than ten years in the college, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for his regularization in any available Class IV post keeping in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra)^{11.Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 = (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, AIR 2010 SC 2587 = (2010) 9 SCC 247.} and the Resolution of F.D. No.WFI-24/97-22764/F dated 15.05.1997.

The above exercise be complied within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

“Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.03.2015, passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No.1181 of 2014, directing the petitioners-respondent to consider the case of the applicant-opposite party No.1 for his regularization in any available Class-IV post, in view of the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Uma Devi (AIR 2006 SC 1806) and M.L. Kesari (AIR 2010 SC-2587) and the Resolution of F.D. No.WFI-24/97-22764/F, dated 15.05.1997.

Considering the submissions made, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference.

The writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed.”

“*** Whereas, in pursuance of the above order of the Hon‟ble Tribunal, the matter has been thoroughly examined on the basis of information received from appropriate quarters and the following facts came into light:

1.

Sri Santosh Kumar Patra was engaged as a temporary worker by the Principal, Sailabala Women‟s College, Cuttack in the year 2000 with intermittent break of engagements. While continuing as such, the Principal, Sailabala Women‟s College engaged him as Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Computer Science (Self Finance) vide Office Order dated 31.08.2010.

2.

It could be seen that the relied employee namely Sri Anam Ch. Nayak was appointed during 1988 in a Class-IV post in the Self-Financing Computer & Information Technology Department of the College. After working for a long period on contract basis, Sri Anam Ch. Nayak filed OA No. 1181 of 2014 for regularization of his service and Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal passed Order on 24.03.2015 in his favour. Though State Government had challenged the Order in W.P.(C) No.1891 of 2016, the same was dismissed and ultimately Sri Nayak was regularised in service.

3.

In the present case, the applicant, Sri Patra is not similarly placed like Sri Anama Charon Nayak whose service has been regularized keeping in view the scheme for absorption of N.M.R./D.L.R./Job Contract Workers under Regular Establishment of Finance, Department vide Resolution No. 22764/F, dated 15.05,1997. The motto of the scheme was that the workers should have worked under the administrative control of the Department concerned directly for a minimum period of 10 years, and they should have been engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. prior to promulgation of ban on engagement of N.M.R./D.L.R/Job Contract Workers etc. vide Finance Department Circular No. 17815-WF-II-180/92-F., dated the 12th April 1993,

4.

As per General Administration Department Resolution No.26108/Gen., Dated the 17th September, 2013, the following are the mandatory eligibility conditionality for regularization of contractual appointees/engagements:

(i)

Contractual appointments/engagements must have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services,

(ii)

Such contractual appointments/engagements must have, been made following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts, and

(iii)

Principle of reservation of Posts must have been followed in case of such contractual appointments / engagements.

5.

It transpires from the Office Order dated 31.08.2010 of Principal, S.B. Women‟s Auto College, Cuttack that considering his length of engagement, his overall good performance in the work assigned to him and his qualification, he was engaged as Laboratory Attendant by the Principal. But such engagement was not in consonance with the guidelines prescribed by General Administration Department.

6.

So, the prayer of the applicant to regularize him in the post of Laboratory Attendant and to extend consequential service and financial benefits at par with one Anam Charan Naik is not tenable in the eyes of law.

7.

Now, therefore, in view of the facts stated supra, the claim of Sri Patra for regularization in any vacant post in Sailabala Women‟s College does not merits any consideration and hence rejected.

The representation of the applicant is accordingly disposed of.”

Hearing:

Rival contentions and submissions:

“With reference to the letter and subject cited above, I want to inform you that the following private persons have been engaged in this College for a long time on a simple consolidated remuneration on a truly temporary basis drawing monthly remuneration from both the Self-Finance (Computer Science and Information Technology) and College Development Fund.

A) Self-Finance Fund (Computer Science and Information Technology) Department

i.

Sri Santosh Patra, Laboratory Assistant, Computer Science.

ii.

Sri Anama Charan Naik, Night Watchman, Computer Science and Information Technology Attendant, SAMS Laboratory.

iii.

Sri Manoj Sahoo, Laboratory Attendant, Information Technology-cum-Day Watchman, Information Technology and Post-Graduation Department of History.

***”

“4.

Categorisation of existing Contractual Employees.— For the purpose of these rules all contractual appointments made prior to the commencement of these rules shall be classified into two categories; namely:

(a)

Category I: Contractual appointments/ engagements made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without following the recruitment procedure including the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 and the rules made thereunder and rules regulating recruitment for the regular posts.

(b)

Category II: Contractual Engagements made through manpower service provider agencies with concurrence of Finance Department.”

Analysis:

“The Letter No.2310, dated 05.09.2005 was issued to the petitioner as a peon in the Computer Science Department which fixed remuneration at Rs.70/-(Rupees seventy) only on a daily basis and this engagement was to be effective from 01.09.2005. The Office of the opposite party No.3 in Letter No.1490, dated 26.09.2007 stated that Sri Patra was temporarily engaged as Attendant in the Computer Science (Self-Financing) Department with effect from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008 with remuneration of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day.”

“Apart from their normal work at the concerned Departments and College gates and inside the campus, they also help in conducting admission work, College/University/Council and Public Examinations, works in the hostels and other works assigned to them from time to time. Their works have been satisfactory and they help in the smooth functioning of the administration of the College.”

“Sri Santosh Kumar Patra, engaged as Lab Attendant in the Department of Computer Science (Self-Finance) is hereby engaged on contractual basis in the same Department keeping his present monthly remuneration intact in the same Department with immediate effect vide Finance Department Letter No.40545, (255)/CS-1(P)-11/08 Dated 29.08.2009 and ORSP Rules, 2008 considering his length of engagement in the same Department, his overall good performance in the works assigned to him from time to time in the Department and in the College Office and his qualification.

He will enjoy all the facilities of a contractual employee hereafter. He will also be engaged in the holidays for all types of work in the College as and when required. He will draw his monthly remuneration as usual from the Funds of Computer Science Department.”

“We find that the case of the parties has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Umadevi‟s case (2006) 4 SCC 1. It has been inter alia observed by the Constitution Bench as follows:

„Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore Vrs. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 this Court stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In R.N. Nanjundappa Vrs. T. Thimmiah and Anr., (1972) 1 SCC 409, this Court dealt with an argument that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated:

„Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.‟

In B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 507 this court clearly held that the words „regular” or „regularization‟ do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality or of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can the court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being temporarily or casually employed in a public sector undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. It is not as if this had not happened. So, the court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions, as such directions may turn counter-productive.

In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vrs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33, this Court held that since the appointment was on purely contractual and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee. This Court also quoted with approval the observations of this Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vrs. U. T., Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130 to the effect:

“We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision.‟

This decision kept in mind the distinction between „regularization‟ and „permanency‟ and laid down that regularization is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any State. It also held that regularization cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature.”

“GAD-SC-RULES-0009-2013—26108/Gen Government of Odisha General Administration Department *** RESOLUTION Bhubaneswar dated the 17th September, 2013. SUB: Regular appointment of existing contractual Group C and Group D employees who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any executive instruction in absence of such rules.

The policy regarding regular appointment of following categories of contractual Group „C‟ and Group „D‟ employees appointed under the State Government was under active consideration of Government for some time past. Contractual appointments/engagements made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual appointments/engagements made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services, following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts and the principle of reservation of Posts and services for different categories of persons decided by the state Government from time to time.

Government after careful consideration and in supersession of the Resolutions/Orders/Instructions issued by different Departments of Government to that effect; except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, have been pleased to decide as follows:

1. Regular Appointment.—

(1)

A gradation list of such contractual employees shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of their date of appointment. In case, the dates of appointment of two or more employees are the same their inter-se position may be decided on the basis of their date of birth, taking the elder as senior.

(2)

Regular appointment of the above categories of contractual employees shall be made on the date of completion of six years of service or from the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, in the order in which their names appear in the gradation list prepared under para 1. The period of six years shall be counted from the date of contractual appointment prior to publication of this Resolution.

(3)

Consequent upon regular appointment under the contractual post, if any, shall get re-converted to regular sanctioned post.

(4)

In case the person concerned has crossed the upper age limit for entry into Government service on the date of contractual appointment for the corresponding regular post, the appointing authority shall allow relaxation of upper age limit.

2. Conditions of Service on Regular Appointment.—

(1)

Regular Appointments: On the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service or from the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed. A formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority.

(2)

Pay and other benefits: On regular appointment they shall be entitled to draw the time scale of pay plus Grade Pay with DA and other allowances as admissible in the corresponding pay band.

(3) Other conditions of service:

(a)

The other conditions of service shall be such as has been provided in the relevant recruitment rules.

(b)

The conditions of service in regard to matters not covered by this Resolution shall be the same as are or as may from time to time be prescribed by the State Government.

3. Interpretation.—

If any question arises relating to the interpretation of this Resolution, it shall be referred to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final.

4.

This has been concurred in by Finance Department and Law Department vide their UOR No.2909-ACSF, Dated 09.07.2013 and UOR No.1687/L., Dated 19.07.2013 respectively.

ORDER: Ordered that the Resolution be published in the extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette. Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be forwarded to all Departments of Government / all Heads of Departments/all Collectors / Registrar, Odisha High Court / Registrar, Odisha Administrative Tribunal Special Secretary, Odisha Public Service Commission/Secretary, Odisha Staff Selection Commission/Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar. By Order of the Governor NITEN CHANDRA Special Secretary to Government”

*** *** *** [No. 1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen.] General Administration Department RESOLUTION The 16th January, 2014 Sub: Regular Appointment of existing Contractual Group C and Group-D employees who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any executive instruction in absence of such rules.

1.

As per General Administration Department Resolution No. 26108/Gen., Dated the 17^th September, 2013, the following are the mandatory eligibility conditionalities for regularlzation of contractual appointees/engagements:

(i)

Contractual appointments/engagements must have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services,

“No.HE-FE-III-MISC-166/2013.32631/HE., dated the 28^th December, 2013

From: Shri D.P. Behera, IAS, Additional Secretary to Government.

To The Director Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

Sub.: Filling up of non-teaching vacant posts in Govt. Colleges in the State.

Sir,

I am directed to invite a reference to your Letter No.30487 dated 25.06.2013 on the subject cited above and to say that Finance Department have concurred in the proposal for filling up the following 274 number of base level non-teaching vacant posts in Government Colleges by direct recruitment on contractual basis.

Sl. No.	Category of the post	No. of post to be filled up	Remarks
1.	Junior Clerk	59	By direct recruitment on contractual basis
2.	Laboratory Assistant-cum-Store Keeper	140	By direct recruitment on contractual basis
3.	Laboratory Attendant	44	By direct recruitment on contractual basis
4.	Junior Librarian	7	By direct recruitment on contractual basis
5.	Library Attendant	24	By direct recruitment on contractual basis
		Total: 274 Posts

The details of the posts (Category-wise) in which colleges to be filled up is given in the statements enclosed (Annexure-„C‟ to „G‟).

The above 274 numbers of different categories of posts as in the statements enclosed shall be filled up on contractual basis following the relevant recruitment rules and provision of ORV Act & Rule. The emoluments and service conditions shall be determined as per the new recruitment rules issued vide General Administration Department Notification No.32010/Gen., dated 12.11.2013 (copy enclosed).

As regards, filling up of vacant posts of Assistant Librarian (23) and Senior Librarian (5) out of 302 posts as agreed to by Finance Department it is stated that since the above posts are promotional posts, such posts shall be filled up as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 27.07.2013 under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department. The copy of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting is enclosed herewith for reference. So the following posts of Librarian cadre may be filled up by way of promotion. The colleges in which the posts of Senior Librarian and Assistant Librarian to be filled up by way of promotion has been indicated in the statements enclosed (Annexure-„A‟ & „B‟).

Sl. No.	Name of the posts to be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder posts as indicated in col.4.	Number of posts to be filled up	Name of the feeder posts
1	2	3	4
1.	Assistant Librarian	23	Junior Librarian
2.	Senior Librarian	05	Librarian
		Total:28 posts

As regards filling up of the base level vacant posts of P.E.T. and Group-D posts in Government Colleges it is stated that Finance Department have not considered the same proposal.

It is therefore requested that necessary steps may kindly be taken early for filling up of aforesaid non-teaching vacant posts as shown in statements enclosed observing all formalities as indicated above.

***

Annexure-G

Laboratory Attendant

“1.

Name of the College : Shailabala Women‟s College, Kataka

2.

Whether accredited by, and if so, Grade : NAAC Grade A: expired 2010

3.

Vacancy position of Non-Teaching staff:

“Point No.3: As per records, Sri Santosh Kumar Patra was not selected from the sponsored names by the local employment exchange. Further, the engagement was not made against any regular vacant post of the Department and the selection process was made at the College level for Computer Science (Self-Finance) Department only.”

“The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, (1952) 1 SCR 135 = AIR 1952 SC 16:

„Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.‟ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:

A Caveat.”

“26.

It requires to be emphasised that the appellants are not persons possessing rare or highly specialised skills who might, without undue difficulty, seek and obtain alternative avenues of livelihood, or who could realistically be expected to compete afresh, at this stage of their working lives, in an open and general selection. They are workers drawn predominantly from the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled categories, engaged on a contractual basis by the State‟s own instrumentality, who have rendered long and continuous service, several of them for well over a decade and a half, and some for periods extending over decades. To deny regularisation to such workers, after having taken the benefit of their labour for so long, is itself symptomatic of the very exploitation that the Society was constituted to prevent, and cannot be countenanced by a constitutional court.

***”

“18.

If the Courts cannot give direction for their regularisation of service, in the constrained legal scenario what other remedies that are available to these unfortunate employees, who have been engaged in service for public purpose, without having any definite future to hold on? These petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks of their employment for years together, by brushing aside and discarding their concerned yearning for a definite future, with unresponsive indifference.

19.

A welfare State grounded on constitutional values, cannot come up with apathetic and callous stand that despite continued employment of these petitioners for years together, no semblance of right is available to them. Such stand by the State is opposed to constitutional values as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts of course have held that equal opportunity must be provided in public employment and entry through back door should be discountenanced. When Article 21, being violated by the State, action towards its servants, the consideration of the Government must primarily be focussed on alleviating legitimate grievances of its employees. Even assuming that the recruitment of these writ petitioners had not been fully in consonance with the procedure for appointment in Government services, the fact remained that these persons have been consciously appointed by the Government for implementing public projects and the work has been extracted from them continuously for several years. It is therefore, not open to the Government after a period of time to turn around and contend that these writ petitioners have no right at all to seek any kind of guarantee for their future.

20.

In the opinion of this Court, continued employment for several years, even on a projects meant to serve the State as a whole, certain rights would definitely accrue to them, atleast to the extent of making a claim for formulation of a scheme/towards their absorption. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the Government has been benevolent and had come up with several schemes in the past and directed regularisation of services of thousands of employees over a period of time. Such benevolence ought to permeate to the lowest levels to take within its sweep the desperate cry of the petitioners as well. As in the sublime words of the father of nation, Mahatma Gandhi, „A nation‟s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members‟. Merely because these writ petitioners have been employed in the projects, the policy makers may not shut their mind and close their eyes to their precarious plight having to serve public purpose but left in the lurch and unprotected, at the end of the day.”

“In each of these appeals, the respondent has worked as contractual watchman for over ten years. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition in paragraph 13 by the present appellants that there were in fact five vacancies in sanctioned posts of watchman. The only distinction sought to be made is that for benefiting by the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, their appointments had to be merely „irregular‟ and not „illegal‟. The fact remains that the respondents have been working continuously as watchmen. It is not the case of the appellant that they are not qualified to be employed as watchman. Given the fact that the respondents have worked as watchmen on contract basis for over ten years, it is obvious that the appellant requires their services. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization. The appeals are dismissed.”

“However, while parting with the order, we may note that whatever may be the mode of engagement/appointment, there is concurrence of the Finance Department and the employees in question were engaged in different Departments of the Government and rendered their services uninterruptedly. Besides that, mode of engagement adopted and selection process followed was consciously adopted and law prevalent at the relevant time for engagement of contractual employees was scrupulously followed under the aegis of Government functionaries. But, surprisingly, after utilizing their services for more than a decade, when question of bringing them under regular establishment arises, they (employees) are pushed to a corner. Government functionaries in a welfare State should refrain from adopting hire and fire policy. The action taken amounts to gambling with the career of the employees, some of whom might have been overaged to compete for employment.”

“Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the respondents herein/original applicants were continued since 2008 against the regular posts and completed six years of contractual service, they were entitled to the benefit of Resolution dated 17.09.2013. The submission made on behalf of the respondents that at the relevant time when they were appointed, the reservation was not followed and, therefore, they are not entitled to regularisation is concerned, the petitioner/State cannot be permitted to take such a stand after continuing them on contractual basis for approximately six years. No interference of this Court is called for. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

“In view of the Resolution dated 17.09.2013, since the respondents have already completed the required years of continuous service/engagement and posts were created pursuant to the direction of the learned Court, the appellants-opposite parties should not have engaged the respondents on contractual basis. Therefore, the appellants opposite parties should regularize the service of the respondents in accordance with the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 of the General Administration Department. Considering the above facts, it is not disputed that similar questions on principles of ORV Act which were not followed earlier, series of writ petitions were disposed of which were confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.18642 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 in the case of State of Odisha & Anr. Versus Jatin Kumar Das which arises out of Original Application No.2172(C) of 2015 and batch of cases. In the said Original Application, the learned Tribunal has already dealt with the said issue having not followed the Rules of the ORV Act at paragraph-8 of the judgment dated 17.05.2017 and Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal wherein the following specific finding was given:

„the ORV Posts and Services Act, 1975 has no application to the posts to be filled up through contract in terms of Section-3(d) of the said Act. The respondents failed to produce any paper indicating the amendment of Section 3(d) of ORV Act, 1975 so also they could not able to produce the documents that there was any other statutory and mandatory provision overriding section 3(d) referred to above for application of the reservation principle while issuing contractual engagement/ appointment in favour of the applicants during the year 2005.‟ However, pursuant to the direction of this Court to take instruction, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 passed by the General Administration Department for regularization of the DLR, daily wages employees shall be applicable in the case of present respondents. In view of the above facts, all the writ petitions were disposed of confirming the order of Tribunal and the said orders of the writ petitions were confirmed by the apex Court in Special Leave Petition on the same issue. Rightly the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State authorities to regularize services of the Respondents petitioner in terms of the above facts and circumstances narrated in the above paragraphs. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22112 of 2020. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.”

“We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.

2 The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

“8.

It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the authority should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a person should not be kept in contractual, temporary or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need of a regular post and accordingly directs for regularization. While issuing direction for regularization, the Court must first ascertain the relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such direction. If for any reason, a contractual, ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization, provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Even though a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three years, a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with empathy for the person.”

“43.

As regards the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as explained later in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982 = (2010) 9 SCC 247⁷, the Respondents can possibly seek the extension of the benefit of the ratio of the aforementioned decisions for two reasons. One, that the Respondents were engaged against sanctioned posts and two, they were engaged after qualifying in a computer test. In M.L. Kesari (supra), the Supreme Court explained:

„It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against „regularization‟ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i)

The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii)

The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure.‟

44.

Going by the above legal position, in the present cases, at the highest, the respondents could be considered to be „irregularly‟ appointed and therefore would, even on the touchstone of Umadevi (supra), be eligible for regularization. The law in M.L. Kesari (supra), has been reiterated in Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265, Sheo Narain Nagar Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 233 and Rajnish Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of U.P., (2019) 17 SCC 648.”

“*** The Division Bench rightly held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vrs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. ***”

“12.

Similarly, in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mahapatra and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the appellants were entitled to regularization in service having regard to the fact that they have rendered long years of service on ad hoc basis.

13.

In the case at hand, it can be ascertained that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacant post and he had been discharging his duties in the said post since 1993. The appointment was made on an ad hoc basis and was extended from time to time. Since the petitioner was appointed against substantive vacancy and the post was sanctioned by higher authorities, the petitioner should have been extended the benefit of regulatisation like other similarly situated persons.”

“7.

It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against „regularisation‟ enunciated in Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i)

The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii)

The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.”

Views expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India:

“5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it is admitted that the opposite parties are discharging their duties and responsibilities from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1995 and 2002. In the year 2017, their designations were changed without any change of remuneration. Without regularising their services, the authorities issued a circular on 15.02.2018, which is absolutely a camouflaged way of approach to the difficulties of the opposite parties to deprive them of the benefit of their regularisation after utilising their services from 1995 and 2002, i.e., for more than 23 years and 16 years by then.

6.

The reliance was placed by the present petitioners before the Tribunal on the cases of State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; Government of Tamil Nadu Vrs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 393 and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 and submission was made that there was no sanctioned post available for engagement of the opposite parties and that the process of engagement of the opposite parties was not in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the opposite parties have no right for regularisation.

7.

The above stand of the petitioners cannot have any application to the case of the present opposite parties, as because, in a case of similarly situated persons, i.e. Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.24759 of 2012, disposed of on 31.07.2017, relying on the decisions rendered in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Keshari, 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 932 = (2010) 9 SCC 247, direction was issued for regularisation of such employees. Similarly, in the case of Manoj Kumar Jena Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 24758 of 2012, disposed of 31.07.2017, this Court also took the similar view as was taken in the case of Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra). The order passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Jena (supra) was assailed by the authorities before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.35963 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2018. Thereby, the order passed by this Court in Manoj Kumar Jena (supra) got affirmed in the apex Court. Here, it is worth mentioning that in both the cases indicted above, i.e. in the case of Basanta Kumar Sahoo and Manoj Kumar Jena (supra), the orders have been passed by one of us (Dr. B.R. Sarangi, ACJ). The said order having been affirmed by the apex Court, as a consequence thereof, the same has been implemented. The decision of Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Amrish Kumar Vrs. Indian Institute of Mass Communication, W.P.(C) No.5906 of 2018 & CM Appl No.23016 of 2018, disposed of on 14.02.2020 [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1915].

8.

In Amrish Kumar (supra), the High Court of Delhi observed as follows:

„In the present case too, the workmen admittedly have been working for 23 years. It clearly tantamount to unfair labour practice by denying them the benefits of regular services for 23 years. The objective of the Act is to prevent unfair labour practice which is defined in detail in 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with reference to Section 2A. The specific definition applicable to the present case is clause 10 which reads as under:

„10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.‟ The facts of the instant case as discussed hereinabove clearly shows that keeping the workmen in uninterrupted service for 23 years as casual workmen and denying them the status and privilege of permanent workmen, constitutes unfair labour practice which is illegal and needs to be quashed. Furthermore, similarly situated workmen of the respondent who worked in its other administrative unit in Orissa (Dhenkanal), for roughly half a century on ad hoc basis, have been directed by the Orissa High Court in Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.24759 of 2012, decided on 31.07.2017 to be regularized. The said judgment has referred to and relied upon Umadevi (supra) and State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247. The SLP against the said judgment of the Orissa High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05.01.2018; therefore, it has attained finality. The case of the present petitioners is identical. That being the position i.e. they had worked for almost 23 years; the employer was same; they had been working against the sanctioned posts; they were not considered as regular employees, therefore, the treatment meted out to them constitutes unfair labour practice. In the circumstances, their services too shall be regularized from initial date of joining, with all consequential benefits.

9.

It is pertinent to mention here that the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Amrish Kumar (supra) was challenged before the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 710 of 2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021 and, as a consequence thereof, the same has also been implemented. Therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal, relying on the said judgment, having passed the order impugned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. As such, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13.07.2023 in O.A. No. 260/00/163 of 2018 is hereby confirmed and the petitioners are directed to regularise the service of the opposite parties from initial date of their joining with all consequential benefits within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order.”

“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 in Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230, 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.

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.

23.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO‟s Multinational Enterprises Declaration [International Labour Organization— Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy] encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.

24.

The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino Vrs. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) 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, common-law 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 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 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 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.”

“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.

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 were terminated 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 date of 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 never applied 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 long time employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”

“9.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e., sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission‟s functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants‟ labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained.

***

13.

As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission‟s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State‟s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

***

17.

Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State Governments) is not a mere 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. 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.

18.

Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that

“ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

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 effect from 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 be so 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.

20.

We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

“ISSUE II.

Whether the action/inaction of the respondent-State

in not recognizing the appellants‟ continuous service for the purpose of regularization is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

10.

The learned Single Judge, vide common order, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to regularize their services. In doing so, the writ Court placed reliance on the terms and conditions of the employment agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondents. The learned Single Judge, in this regard, recorded the following findings:

i.

The appellants were appointed on a purely contractual basis pursuant to a decision of the Finance Department to fill 22 sanctioned posts through contractual engagement, the expenditure being met from non-plan funds. Following issuance of an advertisement and completion of the selection process, the appellants were appointed by entering into contracts of employment for an initial period of one year, extendable from time to time for fixed durations.

ii.

The appellants were granted extensions periodically, with the last extensions having been issued in the year 2023 as a one-time measure. The respondent-State treated the said decision as a conscious policy determination, which, according to the learned Single Judge, did not warrant interference by the Court.

iii.

The appellants were held not entitled to regularization under the regularization scheme framed by the respondent-State in the year 2015, as modified in 2019, which prescribed completion of ten years of continuous service as on the cut-off year 2019. It was further noted that the appellants had not laid any challenge to the validity of the said regularization scheme.

iv.

Since the appellants were appointed on a contractual basis and continued only through periodic extensions, it was held that they did not possess any statutory or legal right to continue in service once the contractual period, including its extensions, came to an end.

v.

Emphasis was laid on the fact that the appellants were fully aware, and were put to notice on each occasion of renewal, that their engagement was contractual and limited to a specified tenure. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge held that no question of legitimate expectation or enforceable right to renewal or regularization could arise, nor could any right be said to have crystallised in their favour.

vi.

It was further noted that the appellants had not been replaced by another set of contractual employees. On the contrary, the material on record indicated that the respondent-State had undertaken regular recruitment and appointed nine persons as regular employees through a fresh advertisement.

10.1.

Aggrieved by the decision of the writ Court, the appellants preferred intra-Court appeals before the High Court. The learned Division Bench upheld the judgment of the writ Court and recorded the following findings:

i.

The law relating to regularization or absorption of contractual employees was held to be well settled, namely that such employees are governed by the terms and conditions of their engagement, the relationship being founded upon a bilateral contract between the employee and the employer.

ii.

It was further held that the terms and conditions of a contract cannot be altered, nor can new conditions be introduced, by issuance of judicial directions, as doing so would amount to impermissible re-writing of the contract. Once the parties have consciously entered into contractual terms, they cannot subsequently resile therefrom or question those conditions.

State as model employer:

11.

At the outset, we find it necessary to express our disapproval of the manner in which the High Court has approached the present lis. The controversy before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of precedents without engaging with the core constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger constitutional context.

11.1.

This Court has consistently held that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity. The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.

11.2.

It therefore follows that the State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced.

***

Legitimate Expectation of the employees:

13.

Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society Vrs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598, wherein it was held as follows:

„63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation:

63.1.

First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;

63.2.

Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;

…

63.5.

Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.

...

64.

The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.‟

13.1.

Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons whose appointments are temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:

„47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.‟

Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:

13.2.

In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants‟ engagement was likely to be granted.

13.3.

In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints.

13.4.

We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State‟s decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants‟ experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order.

13.5.

Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.

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 Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, 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.

13.7.

In Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

13.8.

In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.

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.

13.10.

In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State‟s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants‟ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants‟ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

“8.

When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (Supra) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra). The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi (supra) has been ignored and conveniently over looked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, l6 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of down trodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (supra).

9.

Coming to the facts of the instant case, there was a direction issued way back in the year 1999, to consider the regularization of the appellants. However, regularization was not done. The respondents chose to give minimum of the pay scale, which was available to the regular employees, way back in the year 2000 and by passing an order, the appellants were also conferred temporary status in the year 2006, with retrospective effect on 2.10.2002. As the respondents have themselves chosen to confer a temporary status to the employees, as such there was requirement at work and posts were also available at the particular point of time when order was passed. Thus, the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondent that posts were not available, is belied by their own action. Obviously, the order was passed considering the long period of services rendered by the appellants, which were taken on exploitative terms.

10.

The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (supra). But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred with effect from 02.10.2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.”

“8.6.

In Sheo Narain Nagar Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 11 SCR 138, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court recognized such employment on temporary status as on exploitative terms. The pertinent observation made in the said case is quoted hereunder: ***

8.7.

It is manifest from record that by now the petitioner Appellant, being appointed by duly authorized Appointing Authority, has completed more than 10 years of service, which is requisite length of service for consideration of regularization in service as per Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 [although the Government of Odisha has accepted six years of satisfactory service for regularization in terms of Resolution dated 17.09.2013 read with Resolution dated 16.01.2014] and the authorities of the Regional Transport Officer employed the petitioner-Appellant and extended his terms in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.”

“60.

It is a settled principle that equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed are treated differently without a rational basis, it would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution [Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association Vrs. National Textile Corporation Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 797]. If two sets of employees stand on the same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, the State cannot extend a benefit to one large group and deny it to the smaller group without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of a policy. Once a policy decision is taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who satisfy the prescribed conditions.

61.

In the present case, the State itself framed a policy in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll workers engaged prior to 1^st April, 1993. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision, approximately 30,000 workers were regularized. The appellants belong to that very category. They were engaged prior to the cut-off date and have rendered long and continuous service in the same manner as those who were regularized. There is no distinguishing feature shown which separates them from the beneficiaries of the 2005 decision. Once the State chose to regularize such a large body of workers forming one identifiable class, it was under a constitutional obligation to treat all eligible members of that class alike. The remaining workers who were left out, though otherwise eligible, cannot be excluded and denied the same benefit. It is crucial to note that the exclusion of the appellants from being granted the benefit of the 2005 decision is not attributable to the appellants but is rather predicated in the actions of the State machinery which, on account of inadvertent errors or clerical mistakes, did not include the appellants in the list of beneficiary covered by the said government decision.

62.

Recently, in Pawan Kumar and Others Vrs. Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 556 this Court considered a similar situation wherein certain employees had been regularized but others, though similarly placed, were left out. This Court held that such differential treatment was discriminatory and accordingly granted the same relief to the excluded employees.

63.

Once the State confers a benefit upon a particular class, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same benefit to others who are identically situated. Applying the principle in the present case, the State, having regularized nearly 30,000 workers under its own policy decision, could not refuse to regularize the remaining eligible workers who stood on the same footing. To do so amounts to treating equals unequally, which is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution.

***

67.

The conduct of the State must also be examined in light of its status as a model employer. The State is under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure that its actions are just, reasonable and non-arbitrary. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 reiterated that the State, as a model employer, bears a heightened constitutional obligation in the discharge of its functions. It must act with probity, fairness and candour, and cannot cloud the disputes involving its employees under narrow technical grounds divorced from their broader constitutional context. A model employer is expected to uphold the dignity of its employees more so who are at the lowest pedestal of the hierarchy and to avoid exploiting their vulnerability or precarious position. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution and is not discretionary. Constantly giving undertakings before a constitutional Court and thereafter resiling from them does not comport with the standards expected of a model employer. An undertaking recorded by a Court is not a casual statement, but is a solemn representation on the basis of which judicial orders are passed. The State cannot approbate and reprobate. It cannot, on the one hand, secure time and indulgence from the Court on the assurance that a policy will be implemented and, on the other, avoid implementation by citing precedents that were already in existence at the time the undertakings were furnished.

68.

The repeated undertakings given by the State before the High Court, coupled with the earlier implementation of the Cabinet decision in favour of nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, clearly gave rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of the appellants who were deprived of the benefits of the policy. In the maze of administrative deficiencies, they were entitled to expect that the policy decision would be implemented in a fair, complete and non-discriminatory manner, and that their cases would also be considered as part of the same exercise. Though legitimate expectation does not create a vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from Article 14 of the Constitution.

***

76.

What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions^{88.Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230 = (2024) 9 SCC 327, Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, (2025) 1 SCR 1427; Dharam Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 8 SCR 1026.} is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served it for long years. The consistent thread running through these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.”

“Above apart, where the State policy provides for certain rights regardless of statutory support, the violation of such a policy gives a choate cause of action. The State itself having promulgated such a policy holding it to the public at large, cannot mindlessly invoke the ratio in Umadevi supra as priest would chant mantra. The very existence of such policy takes the case of respondents away from the precincts of said decision. It need not be stated that a small difference in fact matrix of a case may render a decision inapplicable.”

“70.

On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude as under:

i)

The appointment of the part time or contractual instructors/teachers in fact no longer remains contractual in nature once the contract period of eleven months for which they were initially appointed or the extended contract period stood expired;

ii) They were not even part time instructors/teachers as they were specifically prohibited for taking any job or part time employment elsewhere during their spare time;

iii) In fact, these instructors/teachers having continued continuously for over ten years in a row are deemed to be employed permanently against deemed substantive posts, as with the passage of time and keeping in mind the continuity of the work, such posts stand automatically created;

iv) The PAB is the sole central authority to manage budget and finances under the Act and the scheme and to fix honorarium for the instructors/teachers appointed thereunder. No other authority has any say in the matter concerning finance and budget consequently in the fixation of honorarium;

v)

The PAB having once approved the proposal for fixing Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision and pass orders contrary to it;

vi) The initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover”;

vii) The honorarium payable to these instructors/ teachers cannot be permitted to remain stagnant and the same is revisable periodically at least once in three years by the PAB or any other authority as may be determined by the Central Government/State Government under the scheme or the modified scheme;

viii) Any action of the State/Union Government to employ instructors/teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month as was initially fixed in 2013-14 amounts to „Begar‟ and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution;

ix) The PAB having fixed honorarium to these instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from the year 2017-18, the State Government/Central Government is not justified in paying them at a lesser rate of either Rs.8,470/- or Rs.9,800/- or at the basic rate of Rs.7,000/- per month.”

Conclusion: