SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 138, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
[2017] I I S.C.R. 138 
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 18510 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 13,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Service law - Regularization - Appel/a11t initially engaged 
on daily wage basis - Later on. appoillled on contractual basis -
Then respondenrs chose to give minimum of the pay scale, which 
was available to the regular employees - Ajier few years. conferred 
the status of tempormy employees - High Court directed to consider 
them for regularization but their services were not regularized -
Ultimately High Co11rt dismissed writ petition of appellants and 
services of appellants terminated on the finding that their 
appoilllment was irregular - Supreme Court while entertaining 
special leave petition held that there was no back door employment 
or entry of the appellants in service so as to disentitle them from 
benefit of regularization as envisaged in *Uma Devi case- Therecrfier 
appellants were taken back in service and continued in sen-ice -
E 
Claim for reg11lwization - Held: The High Court dismissed the writ 
petitions relying on Uma Devi case - B111 the appellants were 
employed basici1/ly in the year 1993; they had rendered service for 
three yem:s, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it 
was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in 
F 
place for offering such kind of appointment - Tims, 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 w.ef. 2.10.2002 - The 
appellants were required to be appointed 011 reg11lar basis as a one-
time 111eas11re. as laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi - Since 
G 
the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary 
status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect 
in the 2.10.2002, their services are regularized fi'om 2.10.2002, 
consequential ben~/its and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the 
appellants. 
H 
138
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
139 
PRADESH & ORS. 
Judicial notice - Appointmen.t on .contract basis or ad-hoc 
A 
basis or daily-wage basis in dijferenc State departments - Judicial 
notice taken that widely said practice is being continued - The 
decisio11 i11 Uma Devi is not properly 1111derstood a11d rather wrongly 
applied by various State Govemments -
New devise of making 
appointme11t 011 contract basis has been adopted, employment is 
offered 011 daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms - This situation 
B 
was not envisaged by Uma Devi - 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 
spii"it of the Uma Devi has been ignored and conveniently overlooked 
by various State Govemments authorities - It is being used only as c 
a tool for not regularizi11g the services of i11cumbents - They are 
being co11ti11ued in service without payment of due salary for which 
they are entitled on the basis of Arts.14, 16 rlw Art.34 (J){d) of the 
Constitution of India as if they have 110 constitutional protection -
They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require 
D 
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-Constitution of Jndia-Arts.14, 16, 34(1)(d)-
S:lrvice law - Regularization. 
*Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi &
Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006) 3 SCR 953; D.S. Nakara 
v. Unio11 of India AIR 1983 SC 130 : [1983] 2 SCR 
165· - relied on. 
[2006] 3 SCR 953 
[1983] 2 SCR 165 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
relied on 
Para4 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 18510 
of2017. 
E 
F 
F com the Judgment and Order dated 27 .10.2014 of the High Court G 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal Defective 
No. 619 of2014. 
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Divyanshu Sahay, Rohit Kumar Singh, 
Sanjay Goel, Advs. for the Appellant. 
H
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] l l S.C.R. 
A 
Aarohi Bhalla, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar (for Ardhendumauli Prasad), 
Lav Kumar Agrawal, Kundan Kumar Lal, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
B 
l. Leave granted. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
. G 
H 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
3. The appellants were initially engaged on daily-wage basis in 
the month of August, 1993. Later on, they were appointed on contractual 
basis in the year 1996. In the year 2000, Respondent No.3 issued an 
order appointing them as regular employees on the minimum pay scale. 
By way of an order dated 25.7.2006, they were conferred the status of 
temporary employees with retrospective effect from 1.10.2002. There 
was a direction issued by the High Court to consider them for 
regularization, but their services were not regularized. Learned Single 
Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petition seeking regularisation. That 
order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
4. In the year 2014, the services of the appellants were terminated. 
In view of th~ findings recorded by the High Court vide order dated 
27.10.2014, while dealing with the case of the appellants for 
regularization, that their appointments were illegal and not irregular one. 
This Court, w,hile entertaining the special leave petition, on 23.3.2015 
passed the following order: 
"Issue notice. 
It appears primafacie, that the petitioners had approached 
the High Court with a pica for
regularization of services. Even 
this plea has not found favour in the impugned order. However, 
acting on this order dismissing the writ petition the respondents 
have decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. There is 
no casual connection between the two. However, it is the common 
case that the petitioners arc not working for the last four months . 
We put the respondents to caution that if this Court docs not uphold 
the impugned judgment the natural consequences will be that the 
petitioners will be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. 
Therefore, it would be prudent for the respondents to carry on the 
services of the petitioners. It also appears that there is no back
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. v .. STATE OF UTTAR 
141 
PRADESH & ORS. 
door employment or entry of the petitioners so as to dis-entitle 
A 
them from what is envisaged in paragraph 53 of Secretary, State 
of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC I. 
If the respondents permit the petitioners to return to their 
services, this will be without prejudice.to the petitioners' rights in 
the present proceedings." 
B 
It was observed by this Court that there was no back door 
employment or entry of the appellants in service, so as to disentitle them 
froin the benefit of regularization as envisaged in paragraph 53 of decision 
of this Court in Secretary, State of Karna/aka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & 
Ors., (2006) 4 SCC I. Same is extracted hereunder: 
C 
"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where 
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in 
State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) I SCR 128, R.N. 
Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) I SCC 409, and B.N. 
Nagarajan vs. State ofKamataka, (I 979) 4 SCC 507, and referred 
D 
to in paragmph I 5 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned 
vacant posts might have been made and the employees have 
continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention 
of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization 
of the services of such employees may have to be considered on 
merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the 
E 
cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that 
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their 
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time 
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have 
worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not 
F 
under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further 
ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill thos~ vacant 
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where 
temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed . 
. The process must be set in motion within six months from this 
, date. We also clarify that regularization, ifany already made, but 
G 
not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but 
there should be no further by-passing Of the constitutional 
requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly 
appointed as per,the constitutional scheme." 
· 
H
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I l S.C.R. 
A 
5. Thereafter, the appellants have been taken back in service and 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
are continuing 'to serve. By now they have rendered services for about 
24 years, except for an interregnum period of few months from October, 
20 14 till March, 2015. 
6. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
appellants that the services of the appellants ought to have been 
regularized. It was not a case of back door entry or illegal appointment, 
but only irregular and they are entitled for regularization. Learned counsel 
has placed reliance on the observations made in the interim order as 
well as on the decision of Uma Devi (Supra). It was also submitted that 
when temporary status was granted by Respondent No.3 in the year 
2006, the only question that remained was regularization from that very 
date; the minimum pay in the pay-scale was granted in the year 2000; 
and thereafter on 25.7.2006, temporary status had also been granted to 
them w.ef 1.10.2002; thus, their services could not have been dispensed 
with and were required to be regularized. 
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has 
relied upon paragraph 44 of the decision in Uma Devi (Supra), so as to 
contend that it was not the case of irregular appointment but of illegal 
appointment; there was no post available on which the services of the 
appellants ~ould have been regularized and appointment were in 
contravention of the
reservation policy also; thus, termination order was 
rightly issued and, in no case, the appellants were entitled for 
regularization of their services. 
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
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
143 
PRADESH & ORS. 
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 arc being continued in service without payment of due salary for 
which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, l 6 read with Article 34 
(l)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional 
protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 
SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on 
cxploitati ve terms with no guarantee oflivelihood to be continued and in 
old age they are going to be destitutcd, 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 an'd cannot be 
dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but 
equally w1eonstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance 
A 
B 
c 
to really implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time D 
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 
Unia Devi (supra). 
9. Comin~ 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 
E 
F 
G 
H
144 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I l S.C.R. 
long period of services rendered by the appellants. which were taken on 
exploitative terms. 
10. The Fligh Court dismissed the writ application relying on the 
decision in Uma Devi (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 9ftime, when their temporary status was conferred w.ef 
2.10.2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis 
as a one-time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi 
(supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and 
temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective 
effect in the 2.J 0.2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be 
regularized from the said date i.e. 2. I 0.2002, consequential benefits and 
the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of 
three months from today. 
11. Impugned judgment and order and also order terminating the 
services are hereby quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.Pending 
application, stands disposed of. 
Ot!vika Gujral 
ApJ)(al allowe.J.