Karnataka High Court

Sri Nagesh S/O Hanamant Pujeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025

Author:
M.Nagaprasanna

Bench:
M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897
WP No. 105364 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 105364 OF 2025 (S-REG)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 105664 OF 2025 (S-REG)

IN W.P.NO.105364/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI, NAGESH S/O. HANAMANT PUJERI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 218.

2. SHRI. BALESH S/O. YAMANAPPA MASTAMARADI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 218.

3. SRI. KUMAR S/O. BALAYYA KUMARMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 218.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 4. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O. SATTEPPA PUJERI,
Digitally signed by
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Date: 2025.10.31 R/O: GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK,
06:27:43 +0000
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 218.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SANJANA S. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897
WP No. 105364 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISVESWARAYYA TOWER,
VIDHANASUDHA VEEDI, BENGALURU.

3. THE DPEUTY COMMISSIONERE,
BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

4. THE GOKAK CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR,
AT: GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 218.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KIRILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SRINAND PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04/08/2022 IN NO. 535565/DMA/EST2/DWE/46/2021 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 12/09/2022 IN NO. BGM.DUDC1:CR.41/2021-22 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ENDORSEMENT DATED
23/07/2024 IN NO. BJM/DUDC:CR:41:2021-22 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- M. INSOFOR AS PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 TO REGULARIZE THE
SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS AFTER COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF
SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INITIAL
APPOINTMENT IN RESPECTIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE POSTS WITH ALL
MONETARY BENEFITS BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.105664/2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VITHAL S/O. IRANNA SUBHANJI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE/DRIVER,
R/O: GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI PIN - 591 218.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897
WP No. 105364 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISVESWARAYYA TOWER, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI PIN - 590 001.

4. THE GOKAK CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
AT. GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.
PIN-591218.

5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KIRILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SRINAND PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.08.2022 IN NO. 535565/DMA/EST2/DWE/46/2021 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 12.09.2022 IN NO. BGM:DUDC:1:CR:41/2021-22/854 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G1 AND ENDORSEMENT
DATED 23.07.2024 IN NO.BM/DUDC:1:CR: 41.2021-22/687 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H INSOFOR AS PETITIONER
HIS CONCERNED. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO REGULARIZE THE
SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AFTER COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF
SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT DATED
01.10.2004 IN POSTS OF DRIVER WITH ALL MONETARY BENEFITS BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897
WP No. 105364 of 2025
C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners in W.P. No.105364/2025, four in

number and the petitioner in W.P. No.105664/2025, one in

number, are at the doors of this Court calling in question an

endorsement dated 04.08.2022, by which the claim of these

petitioners seeking regularisation of their services has been

turned down. The consequential direction to regularise the

services of the petitioners after completion of ten years from the

date of their initial appointment, is sought.

2. Heard the learned Counsel Smt. Sanjana S.Mudhol

appearing to the petitioners; learned AGA Shri V.S. Kalasurmath

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and the learned counsel

Shri Srinand Pachhapure appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioners in W.P. No.105364/2025 were appointed as

Watermen and the petitioner in W.P. No.105664/2025 was

appointed as driver on Daily Wage Basis in Gokak City Municipal

-5-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Council against sanctioned vacant posts. This is an admitted fact.

The particulars of appointment of the petitioners are as follows:

In W.P. No.105364 of 2025

Number of
Sl. Date of
Name of the petitioners year
No. appointment
completed
1 Nagesh Hanamant Pujeri 01/07/1997 28 years
(Waterman)

2. Balesh Yamanappa 01/11/1991 34 years
Mastamaradi (Waterman)

3. Kumar Balayya Kumarmath 01/10/2004 21 years
(Waterman)

4. Kempanna Sattayappa Pujeri 01/10/2004 21 years
(Waterman)

In W.P. No.105664 of 2025

Number of
Sl. Date of
Name of the petitioners year
No. appointment
completed
Vithal Iranna Subhanji
1 01.10.2004 20 years
(Driver)

4. In W.P. No.105364 of 2025, the first petitioner is

appointed on 01.07.1997, the second petitioner on 01.11.1991,

third petitioner on 01.10.2004 and fourth petitioner on

01.10.2004. Petitioner No.1, as on today completed 28 years of

services, petitioner No.2 has completed 34 years of service and

petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have completed 21 years respectively. In

W.P. No.105664 of 2025, the petitioner is appointed on

01.10.2004.

-6-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

5. The petitioners were at the doors of this Court

seeking consideration of their cases for regularization in Writ

Petition No.100103 of 2021, which comes to be disposed by an

order dated 27.01.2021 directing consideration of the

representations submitted by these petitioners for regularisation

of their services within two months from the date of receipt of

copy of the said order. The result of the direction is the

impugned endorsement dated 12.09.2022, which declines to

accept the claim of these petitioners for regularisation of their

services on the score that the claim runs counter to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
SECRETARY, STATE

OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI
(3)1.

6. The petitioners again had approached this Court in

Writ Petition No.100174 of 2023 in which the endorsement dated

12.09.2022 was not challenged. The Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court disposed the writ petition reserving liberty to the

petitioners to raise a challenge to the said endorsement. As an

offshoot of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ

Petition No.100174 of 2023 comes the impugned endorsement
(2006) 4 SCC 1

-7-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

dated 23.07.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the

very same ground that the petitioners have not completed 10

years of service as on the cut-off date as obtaining in the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UMADEVI
(3)

(supra). It is the aforesaid endorsements that have driven these

petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

7. Learned counsel Smt. Sanjana S.Mudhol representing

the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners

have been in continuous employment as waterman and driver in

the fourth respondent Municipal Council without any break. It is

more than 20 years each of these petitioners have been working.

The two directions of consideration of their cases for

regularisation at the hands of this Court have become no avail

for the reason that the State is now wanting to rely on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UMADEVI
(3)

(supra) to deny the claim of the petitioners.

Learned counsel

submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

UMADEVI
(3) (supra) is distinguished in subsequent

judgments.

-8-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

8. Learned HCGP would vehemently refute the

submission to contend that as on the date of rendering of the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UMADEVI
(3)

(supra), none of the petitioners had completed 10 years of

service. Therefore, the claim of these petitioners cannot be

considered. The other submission is that in the year 2017, the

list of eligible candidates for the purpose of regularisation was

already notified by the Municipal Council, in which the names of

the petitioners were not found. No objections were filed by these

petitioners or their claim was never registered that they are

entitled for regularisation at the relevant point in time and

therefore, learned counsel submits that this Court should not

entertain the plea of these petitioners seeking regularisation at

this juncture.

9. Learned counsel Shri Srinand Pachhapure appearing

for respondent No.4 submits that they have recommended the

cases of these petitioners for regularisation and communicated to

the State on 15.01.2025 and therefore submits that he has no

further say in the matter as it is the State which has to pass an

order.

-9-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused

the material on record.

11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates

on which the petitioners entered employment is charted herein

above. The dates are again not in dispute. The issue is whether

these petitioners would become entitled to consideration of their

cases for regularisation or otherwise. The petitioners were twice

over before this Court seeking consideration of their cases for

regularisation, which all come to be rejected by the impugned

endorsements. The endorsement is that the petitioners had not

completed 10 years of service as on the date of the rendering of

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UMADEVI
(3)

(supra), which is on 10.04.2006. It is germane to notice that in

identical circumstances this Court in Writ Petition No.107774 of

2023 and connected matters concerning a different Municipal

Council had directed regularisation of those petitioners by the

following order:

12. "The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute,
they are all a matter of record, the dates link in the chain
of events, the appointment of the petitioners, are all
again a matter of record and undisputed facts. The
petitioners have as on today rendered 33, 29, 28 & 26

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

years respectively in the 4th respondent - Municipality,
be it in the cadre of cleaner, sweeper, poura karmika or a
driver, nonetheless they are all working in the 4th
respondent-Municipality, from the respective dates of
their appointment. Uninterruptedly, till 2025 i.e.,
today, the employment of these petitioners, are not
litigious as their services are never continued on the
basis of any interim order granted at the hands of this
Court. They are in continuous employment owing their
necessity in the 4th respondent- Municipality and the
necessity still prevails. The 4th respondent has filed its
statement of objections, where it is admitted that the
petitioners are working from the dates of the respective
engagements till today. The contention of the State that
regularization orders should not be passed for the
asking is noted only to be rejected as these petitioners
have toiled in the 4th respondent - Municipality at their
prime luth right from 33 years, 26 years respectively.
Today, they are all aged between 56 to 60 years. If today
they are sent home without any benefit of regularization,
they would be wondering in their retired life.

13.
In identical circumstances, the Apex Court in
the case of
Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam
reported in 2025
SSC OnLine SC 221 has held as follows:

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

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

In 2004, the Appellant Workmen,
along with many other similarly situated
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

Since the above termination took place
during the pendency of the conciliation
proceedings, the Appellant Workmen argue it
violated
Section 6E
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Consequently, the State Government
referred the disputes concerning both (i)
regularization and

(ii) legality of the alleged termination, to the
Labour Court, Ghaziabad for adjudication.

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

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

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

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the
awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement), the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam,
filed several writ petitions before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour
Court's findings. On the other hand, the workmen
whose claims were dismissed by the other set of
awards also approached the High Court by filing
their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions
were heard together, culminating in the common
judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly modified
the Labour Court's conclusions.

Through the impugned judgment, the
High Court held that while the Labour Court
was correct in exercising jurisdiction under
the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
(since
municipalities could be treated as "industry"),
there remained factual complexities as to
whether the workmen were genuinely on the
rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by
contractors. The High Court also noted that
the State Government had, by
notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh
recruitments in Municipal Corporations,
thereby restricting direct appointments to any
post.

Ultimately, the High Court partially
modified the relief granted, directing re-
engagement of the workmen on daily wages,
with pay equivalent to the minimum in the
regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing
future consideration of their regularization if
permissible by law.

4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the
Respondent Employer have now approached this
Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The
workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with
back wages and a direction to secure their
regularization, whereas the Respondent Employer
seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the
High Court on the ground that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief
akin to regular employees, contrary to

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

constitutional provisions and the State's ban on
recruitment.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant
Workmen made the following submissions:

I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties
: The Appellant Workmen had continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance
duties-- like planting trees, upkeep of public
parks, and general beautification--under the
direct supervision and control of the
Respondent Employer for periods often
exceeding a decade. They insist such
longstanding, continuous work parallels that
of permanent Gardeners.

II. Direct Engagement & Wage
Disbursement : They aver that their
wages, though inadequate, were paid
directly by the Horticulture Department of
the Respondent Employer, nullifying the
Employer's claim of contractual hiring.
Muster rolls and internal notes are cited to
show direct employer-employee relations.

III. Illegal Termination : Alleging violation of

Sections 6E
and
6N
of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen
maintain their abrupt termination in July
2005 (during pendency of conciliation
proceedings) was devoid of due process and
statutory payments, rendering it patently
illegal.

IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement &
Regularization : Given their long service
and the principle of "equal pay for equal
work," the Appellant Workmen submit they
deserve full reinstatement with back wages
and a legitimate pathway to regularization,
as opposed to the partial relief of mere daily-
wage re-engagement prescribed by the High
Court.

6. On the other, the learned counsel for

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

the Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
made the following submissions:

I. Compliance with Constitutional
Requirements: Emphasizing the
constitutional scheme of public employment,
it is urged that there was (and remains) a
ban on fresh recruitment in Municipal
Corporations, and no proper selection
process was ever followed to appoint the
Workmen on any sanctioned posts.

II. No Direct Employer-Employee
Relationship : The Respondent Employer
contends that all horticulture work was
carried out through independent contractors
appointed via tender processes. It claims any
partial wage documentation cited by the
Workmen fails to establish direct
engagement.

III. Inapplicability of Regularization :

Relying on
Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi1
, it is asserted that no daily
wager can claim permanent absorption
without adherence to constitutional
requirements and availability of duly
sanctioned vacancies.

IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days' Service
: The Respondent Employer points out that
the Workmen did not convincingly
demonstrate they completed 240 days of
continuous work in any calendar year, thus
undermining the assertion that their
cessation from service was illegal.

V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it
argues that the High Court's direction to pay
minimum-scale wages and to consider the
Workmen for future regularization oversteps
legal boundaries, disregards the recruitment
ban, and fosters an impermissible avenue of
public employment. The Respondent
Employer, therefore, seeks the quashing of
the impugned judgment.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

7. Having heard the arguments and
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the nature of
engagement of the Appellant Workmen, the
admitted shortage of Gardeners, and the
circumstances under which their services were
brought to an end, merit closer scrutiny.

8. It is undisputed that, while the
Appellant Workmen were pressing for
regularization and proper wages through pending
conciliation proceedings, the Respondent Employer
proceeded to discontinue their services, without
issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment
compensation. At this juncture, it is to have a look
at the requirements of
Section 6E
of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has been
reproduced hereunder:--

"6E. [Conditions of service, etc. to remain
unchanged in certain circumstances during the
pendency of proceedings. [Inserted by U.P. Act No.
1 of 1957.]

(1) During the pendency of any conciliation
proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board
or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or
Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no
employer shall,

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the
dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the
workmen concerned in such dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to them
immediately before the commencement of
such proceeding, or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise any workman
concerned in such dispute save with the
express permission in writing of the authority
before which the proceeding is pending.

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer
may, in accordance with the standing orders
applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute,

-

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected
with the dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to that workman
immediately before the commencement of
such proceeding, or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise:

Provided that no such workman shall be
discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid
wages for one month and an application has been
made by the employer to the authority before
which the proceeding is pending for approval of
the action taken by the employer.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (2) no employer shall during the pendency
of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial
dispute, take any action against any protected
workman concerned in such dispute, -

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected
workman, the conditions of service applicable
to him immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding, or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by
dismissal or otherwise, such protected
workman, such with the express permission
in writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending. Explanation. - For the
purposes of this sub-section, a 'protected
workman' in relation to an establishment,
means a workman who, being an officer of a
registered trade union connected with the
establishment, is recognized as such in
accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

workmen to be recognized as protected workmen
for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall not exceed
one per cent of the total number of workmen
employed therein subject to a minimum number of
five protected workmen and a maximum number
of one hundred protected workmen and for the
aforesaid purpose, the State Government may
make rules providing for the distribution of such
protected workmen among various trade unions, if
any, connected with the establishment and the
manner in which they may be chosen and
recognized as protected workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an application to
a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal under the proviso
to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken
by him, the authority concerned shall, without
delay, hear such application and pass, as
expeditiously as possible, such order in relation
thereto as it deems fit."

9. On a plain reading of this section,
we can deduce that any unilateral alteration
in service conditions, including termination, is
impermissible during the pendency of such
proceedings unless prior approval is obtained
from the appropriate authority. The record in
the present case does not indicate that the
Respondent Employer ever sought or was
granted the requisite approval. Prima facie,
therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate
attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of
the workmen, particularly when their dispute
over regularization and wages remained sub
judice.

10. The Respondent Employer consistently
labelled the Appellant Workmen as casual
employees (or workers engaged through an
unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof
of adherence to
Section 6N
of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a proper
notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as
retrenchment compensation. In this context,
whether an individual is classified as regular or
temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

under the Act must be met in all cases attracting
Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without
statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.

11. xxxx

12. xxxx

13. xxxx

14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on
Umadevi
(supra)2 to contend that
daily-wage or temporary employees cannot
claim permanent absorption in the absence of
statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma
Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are "illegal" and those that
are "irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain
conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi
cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative
engagements persisting for years without the
Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true
contractor-based arrangement and a
consistent need for permanent horticultural
staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued
unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant
Workmen continuously rendered their
services over several years, sometimes
spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer's failure to furnish such records--
despite directions to do so--allows an
adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law
strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances
where the work is permanent in nature.

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
ongoing municipal requirements year after
year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this
juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the
broader critique of indefinite "temporary"
employment practices as done by a recent
judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India3 in the following paragraphs:

"xxxxxxxxx"

16. xxx

17. xxx

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.

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s)
filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the
appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are
dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)"

The Apex Court was considering the cases of those
persons, who are appointed on work charged
establishment, the petitioners are similarly situated. The
Apex Court was considering the cases where services
were terminated, re-instated, pursuant to the orders of
the Labour Court therein. Nonetheless, the Apex Court
observes that they are in continuous employment for over

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

3 decades there and directs regularization. The
petitioners in the case at hand are in service for more
than 3 decades in certain cases and close to 3 decades in
certain cases. In that light, the claim of the petitioners
could not have been denied on a spacious plea that there
is no resolution of the Town Municipal Council appended
to the requisition to the Deputy Commissioner.

14. The Town Municipal Council has filed its
objections accepting the fact that the petitioners are in
employment throughout. If that be so, the very reason
rendered by the Deputy Commissioner may be inter
alia. But one of the reasons rendered is unacceptable, nor
the rejection of the applications of the petitioners, is
acceptable.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Petitions are allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 24.03.2023
passed by the 3rd respondent vide
Annexure-S in W.P.No.107774/2023,
the impugned order dated 27.10.2022
passed by the 3rd respondent vide
Annexure-S in W.P.No.100470/2023,
the impugned order dated 27.10.2022
passed by the 3rd respondent vide
Annexure-P in W.P.No.100471/2023 &
the impugned order dated 27.10.2022
passed by the 3rd respondent vide
Annexure-S in W.P.No.100477/2023
stand quashed.

iii. Mandamus issues directing the
respondents Nos.1 to 4 to consider
regularization of the services of the
petitioners, with all consequential
benefits, within 3 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order."

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

12. Notwithstanding the aforesaid direction, the

impugned endorsement hinges upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of
UMADEVI
(3) (supra), which has stood

distinguished by subsequent judgments of the Apex Court.

13. The endorsements which have from time to time

been issued by the State, which are all challenged in the subject

petition, reads as follows:

Annexure - J in W.P. No.105364/2025:

¸ÀASÉå:535565/rJAJ/EJ¹Ö2 rqÀ§ÆèE/46/2021
¢£ÁAPÀ:4/08/2022

EªÀjUÉ,
f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè, ¨É¼U
À Á«.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ:- "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ½ £ËPÀgg
À À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ©fJA: rAiÀÄÄr¹: 1:

¹Dgï-41: 21-22/ 183 ¢: 24/05/2022.

2. F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA: E-535565
rJAJ/ EJ¸ïn2 rqÀ§ÆèE/ 46/2021.

¢: 02.09.2021.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥Àvz Àæ °
À è ªÀiÁ£Àå
GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ²æÃ£ÁUÉÃ±À ºÉZï.¥ÀÇeÉÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvg
À ÀgÀÄ. UÉÆÃPÁPï £ÀUg À À
¸À¨,sÉ ¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ jmï Cfð £ÀA. 100103/2021
(J¸ï.Dgï.Ef)PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/01/2021 gÀAzÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPA À qÀAvÉ
DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ.

In the light of the said submission, 6th respondent is
directed to consider the representation dated 27/5/2020

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

and pass appropriate orders within a period of two
months from the dte of receipt of copy of this order."

ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£
À A
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/04/2006gÀ wÃ¦ð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/04/2006gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g À t À zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ®Ä ¢:

01/07/1999gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ 10/04/2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¹zÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ
¥Àvz Àæ ° À è FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä w½¹zÀÄÝ,
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀPæ g À t
À ªÁVgÀÄªÀzj À AzÀ DzÀåvÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ jmï CfðzÁgÀjUÉ
«ªÀgª À ÁzÀ »A§gÀºª À £
À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀª æ ÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤AzÀ£Á ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÁR¯ÁUÀzA À vÉ PÀª
æ ÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀ PÀª æ ÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä
PÉÆÃjzÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»
¤zÉð±ÀPgÀ ÀÄ
¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
Annexure - K in W.P. No.105364/2025:

PÀ¸
æ A
À :©fJA.rAiÀÄÄr¹:1:¹Dgï:41:2021-22 11:2021-22/854

f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ,
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U
À Á«,
¢£ÁAPÀ:12.09.2022.

»A§gÀºÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ: UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸ À ¨
À A
sÉ iÀÄ°è 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg
À À
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ £À°è
zÁR¯ÁzÀ jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå:100103/2021 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ
DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ ¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªg
À À DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: 100103/2021 (S-REG)
¢£ÁAPÀ:-27.01.2021

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-
18.12.2021

3. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À À¨sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ
£ÀA:£À£U
À ÉÆÃ:

¹§âA¢:2021-22/621 ¢:17.02.2021.

4. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

24.05.2022.

5. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg
À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªgÀ À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå
535565:rJAJ:EJ¸ïn2:r§ÆèöåE:46:2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ:-
04.08.2022.

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹
Â zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ,
G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀ°è 1. ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±À JZï. ¥ÀÇeÉÃj 2. ²æÃ ¨Á¼ÉÃ±À ªÁAiÀiï.
ªÀiÁ¸ÀÛªÀÄgÀr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3. ²æÃ JZï.n. CªÀÄätV EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPªÀæ ÀÄw
PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀg° À è jmï
Cfð £ÀA:100103/2021 zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzg
À À ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå
À è In the light of the said
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢:27.01.2021 gÀ DzÉÃ±Àz°
submission, 6th respondent is directed to consider the
representation dated 27.5.2020 and pass appropriate
orders within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order." CAvÁ DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ
¸Àzj À £ËPÀggÀ £
À ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀª æ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨ À sÉ
UÉÆÃPÁPÀ. EªÀjUÉ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£ À É ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. G¯ÉèÃR (3) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ
¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸Àzj À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß
¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£
À É ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR (4)
gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¸ÀzjÀ 5 d£À ¹§âA¢UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ'
PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªj À UÉ
¤zÉÃð±À£À PÉÆÃj ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ ¥ÀvzÀæ °
À è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg
À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
10.04.2006 gÀ wÃ¦ð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼£À ÀÄß
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g À tÀ zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

- 25 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

01.07.1999 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÀÇgÉÊ¸ÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA
É zÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz
É ÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ
¥À¸æ ÁÛªu À AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
gÀªg À À G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ°è£À ¥Àvª Àæ £À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À tÀ zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g
À t À zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

01.07.1999 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼£
À ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¸ÀzÃÉ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¤ªÀÄä
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃUÉ vÀg¯ À ÁVzÉ.

f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè, ¨É¼U À Á«.

Annexure - M in W.P. No.105364/2025:

PÀæ ¸ÀA:©fJA:rAiÀÄÄr¹:1:¹Dgï:41:2021-22/687
f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U
À Á«,
¢£ÁAPÀ:23.07.2022.

»A§gÀºÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ:- "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¸ÀPªÀæ ÀiÁw
DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:13593 r.JªÀiï.J 93 r.qÀ§Æèå E
2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.08.2017 gÀ DzÉÃ±Àª£ À ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.05.2024.

2. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ
¢£ÁAPÀ:07.06.2024.

3. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg
À À
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå £À£U
À ÉÆÃ:¹§âA¢:2024-25/311
¢:09.07.2024.

4. ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À À
CzsÀåPÀëvA
É iÀÄ°è £ÀUg
À À ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼
À °À è UÀÆ¥
æ ï

- 26 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

'r'ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁw ¸À¨A
sÉ iÀÄ £ÀqÁªÀ½ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.12.2017.

5. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg
À À
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£À¸U
À ÉÆÃ/¹§âA¢/2017-18 :

¢£ÁAPÀ:16.12.2017.

6. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£
À À
¸ÀASÉå:©fJA:rAiÀÄÄr¹ :5:¹Dgï: 2017-18/1438
¢:26.12.2017,

7. ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀ£
Ñ ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁR¯ÁzÀ jmï
¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå:100174/2023.

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹ Â zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ.G¯ÉèÃR
(1) gÀr ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.07.1997 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01.11.1999 jAzÀ
UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À AsÉ iÀÄ°è ªÁ¯ïé ªÀÄ£ï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÁV
¢£ÁAPÀ:26.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À ÀÄ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ
£ÀUg
À ¸À ¨À sA
É iÀÄ 08 d£À "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É
¸ÀzjÀ £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ«
wÃ¦ð£À ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ CºÀðjgÀzÃÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sA
É iÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå
¸À¨sÉ oÀgÁªÀÅ £ÀA. 73 ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.01.2011 gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¸Àzj À 8 d£À 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ
£ËPÀgg À ÀÄ CºÀðvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä UÉÆÃPÁPÀ
£ÀUg
À ¸À ¨À sA
É iÀÄ oÀgÁªÀ£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUð À zÀªg À ÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ
wzÀÄÝ¥r À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw DzÉÃ±Àª£ À ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À
«µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀU¼ À À PÀÄjvÀÄ
¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯Áw ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÀg¢ À
¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªj À UÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É
G¯ÉèÃR (3) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À À¸¨ À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸Àzj À
«µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É

¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À À¨sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR (4) gÀr ¨É¼U À Á« f¯ÉèAiÀÄ £ÀUg À À ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À °À è
UÀÆ¥ æ ï 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ £Àqz É À
¸À¨AsÉ iÀÄ°è ¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À°è w½¹gÀÄªÀ 8 d£À ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À
AiÀiÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀZ æ ÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹ ¸À®ºÉ/DPÉëÃ¥ÀuU É ÁV f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
¨É¼U À Á« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ £ÀUg À ¸
À ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À À £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ
®UÀwÛ¸® À Ä ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥Àu/É ¸À®ºÉU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.12.2017 gÀ
M¼ÀUÁV ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. D ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À sA
É iÀÄ
£ÉÆÃn¸ï ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀZ æ ÄÀ gÀ¥r À ¹ G¯ÉèÃR (5)
gÀr AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥Àu/É ¸À®ºÉU¼ À ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ F

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É C®èzÃÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ D CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèU° À Ã CxÀªÁ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À sA
É iÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèU° À Ã
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. G¯ÉèÃR (6) gÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£ À zÀ rÀ
ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸À®ºÉ/DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ
¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£À z À °À è w½¹ UÀÆ¥ æ ï 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 10 ªÀµð À ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÀÄÝ. EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz É ÀÄ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzjÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁªÉ zÁR°¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¯ÉèÃR (7) gÀ,
¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è
«ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ ºÀAvÀz°À ègÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛz.É

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹ Â zÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, oÀgÁ«£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
wzÀÄÝ¥r À DUÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ªÀg¢ À ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¥Àª£ À ÀÄß F »AzÉ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¸z À ÃÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 7 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
£ÀAvÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÉ¤¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz É ÀÄ ¸Àzg À À
«µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁªÉ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgª À £
À ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É
¥À¸
æ ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀzjÀ ¥ÀPæ gÀ t
À ªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ ºÀAvÀz°À èzÀÄÝ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀª æ ÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CAvÁ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃUÉ vÀg¯ À ÁVzÉ.

AiÉÆÃd£Á ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ,
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U À Á«.

Annexure - G in W.P. No.105664/2025:

¸ÀASÉå:535565/rJAJ/EJ¹Ö2 rqÀ§ÆèE/46/2021
¢£ÁAPÀ:4/08/2022

EªÀjUÉ,
f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè, ¨É¼U
À Á«.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ:- "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ½ £ËPÀgg
À À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ©fJA: rAiÀÄÄr¹: 1:

¹Dgï-41: 21-22/ 183 ¢: 24/05/2022.

- 28 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA: E-535565
rJAJ/ EJ¸ïn2 rqÀ§ÆèE/ 46/2021.

¢: 02.09.2021.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥Àvz Àæ °
À è ªÀiÁ£Àå
GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ²æÃ£ÁUÉÃ±À ºÉZï.¥ÀÇeÉÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvg
À ÀgÀÄ. UÉÆÃPÁPï £ÀUg À À
¸À¨,sÉ ¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ jmï Cfð £ÀA. 100103/2021
(J¸ï.Dgï.Ef)PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/01/2021 gÀAzÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPA À qÀAvÉ
DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ.

In the light of the said submission, 6th respondent is
directed to consider the representation dated 27/5/2020
and pass appropriate orders within a period of two
months from the dte of receipt of copy of this order."

ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£
À A
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/04/2006gÀ wÃ¦ð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/04/2006gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g À t À zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ®Ä ¢:

01/07/1999gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ 10/04/2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¹zÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ
¥Àvz Àæ ° À è FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä w½¹zÀÄÝ,
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀPæ g À t
À ªÁVgÀÄªÀzj À AzÀ DzÀåvÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ jmï CfðzÁgÀjUÉ
«ªÀgª À ÁzÀ »A§gÀºª À £
À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀª æ ÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤AzÀ£Á ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÁR¯ÁUÀzA À vÉ PÀª
æ ÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀ PÀª æ ÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä
PÉÆÃjzÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»
¤zÉð±ÀPgÀ ÀÄ
¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
Annexure - G1 in W.P. No.105664/2025:

PÀ¸
æ A
À :©fJA.rAiÀÄÄr¹:1:¹Dgï:41:2021-22 11:2021-22/854

f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ,
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U
À Á«,
¢£ÁAPÀ:12.09.2022.

- 29 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

»A§gÀºÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ: UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸ À ¨
À A
sÉ iÀÄ°è 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg
À À
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ £À°è
zÁR¯ÁzÀ jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå:100103/2021 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ
DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ ¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªg
À À DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: 100103/2021 (S-REG)
¢£ÁAPÀ:-27.01.2021

2. PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-
18.12.2021

3. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À À¨sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ
£ÀA:£À£U
À ÉÆÃ:

¹§âA¢:2021-22/621 ¢:17.02.2021.

4. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

24.05.2022.

5. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg
À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªgÀ À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå
535565:rJAJ:EJ¸ïn2:r§ÆèöåE:46:2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ:-
04.08.2022.

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹
Â zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ,
G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀ°è 1. ²æÃ £ÁUÉÃ±À JZï. ¥ÀÇeÉÃj 2. ²æÃ ¨Á¼ÉÃ±À ªÁAiÀiï.
ªÀiÁ¸ÀÛªÀÄgÀr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3. ²æÃ JZï.n. CªÀÄätV EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPªÀæ ÀÄw
PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀg° À è jmï
Cfð £ÀA:100103/2021 zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzg
À À ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå
À è In the light of the said
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢:27.01.2021 gÀ DzÉÃ±Àz°
submission, 6th respondent is directed to consider the
representation dated 27.5.2020 and pass appropriate
orders within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order." CAvÁ DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ
¸Àzj
À £ËPÀggÀ £
À ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀª æ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨À sÉ
UÉÆÃPÁPÀ. EªÀjUÉ ¥À¸ æ ÁÛª£ À É ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. G¯ÉèÃR (3) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ
¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸Àzj À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼£À ÀÄß

- 30 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¥À¸
æ ÁÛª£
À É ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR (4)
gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¸Àzj
À 5 d£À ¹§âA¢UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ'
PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªj À UÉ
¤zÉÃð±À£À PÉÆÃj ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ ¥ÀvzÀæ °
À è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg
À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ
10.04.2006 gÀ wÃ¦ð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g À tÀ zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

01.07.1999 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÀÇgÉÊ¸ÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz
É ÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ
¥À¸æ ÁÛªu À AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
gÀªg À À G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ°è£À ¥Àvª Àæ £À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À tÀ zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10
ªÀµð À UÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À
¥ÀPæ g
À t À zÀ°è£À jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-

01.07.1999 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ
DzÉÃ±Àz£ À ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-10.04.2006 gÉÆ¼ÀUÉ 10 ªÀµð À UÀ¼£
À ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉÊ¸ÀzÃÉ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¤ªÀÄä
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃUÉ vÀg¯ À ÁVzÉ.

f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¨É¼U
À Á« f¯Éè, ¨É¼U À Á«.

Annexure - H in W.P. No.105664/2025:

PÀæ ¸ÀA:©fJA:rAiÀÄÄr¹:1:¹Dgï:41:2021-22/687
f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U
À Á«,
¢£ÁAPÀ:23.07.2022.

»A§gÀºÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ:- "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¸ÀPªÀæ ÀiÁw
DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:13593 r.JªÀiï.J 93 r.qÀ§Æèå E
2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.08.2017 gÀ DzÉÃ±Àª£ À ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

- 31 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.05.2024.

2. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ
¢£ÁAPÀ:07.06.2024.

3. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg
À À
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå £À£U
À ÉÆÃ:¹§âA¢:2024-25/311
¢:09.07.2024.

4. ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À À
CzsÀåPÀëvA
É iÀÄ°è £ÀUg À À ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼
À °À è UÀÆ¥
æ ï
'r'ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPª
Àæ ÀiÁw ¸À¨A sÉ iÀÄ £ÀqÁªÀ½ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.12.2017.

5. ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg
À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg
À À
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:£À¸U
À ÉÆÃ/¹§âA¢/2017-18 :

¢£ÁAPÀ:16.12.2017.

6. F PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£
À À
¸ÀASÉå:©fJA:rAiÀÄÄr¹ :5:¹Dgï: 2017-18/1438
¢:26.12.2017,

7. ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀ£
Ñ ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁR¯ÁzÀ jmï
¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå:100174/2023.

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹ Â zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ.G¯ÉèÃR
(1) gÀr ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.07.1997 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01.11.1999 jAzÀ
UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À AsÉ iÀÄ°è ªÁ¯ïé ªÀÄ£ï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÁV
¢£ÁAPÀ:26.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À ÀÄ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ
£ÀUg
À ¸À ¨À sA
É iÀÄ 08 d£À "r" ªÀÈAzÀzÀ £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É
¸ÀzjÀ £ËPÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ GªÀiÁzÉÃ«
wÃ¦ð£À ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ CºÀðjgÀzÃÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sA
É iÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå
¸À¨sÉ oÀgÁªÀÅ £ÀA. 73 ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.01.2011 gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¸Àzj À 8 d£À 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ
£ËPÀgg À ÀÄ CºÀðvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä UÉÆÃPÁPÀ
£ÀUg
À ¸À ¨À sA
É iÀÄ oÀgÁªÀ£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUð À zÀªg À ÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ
wzÀÄÝ¥r À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw DzÉÃ±Àª£ À ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À
«µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀU¼ À À PÀÄjvÀÄ
¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯Áw ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÀg¢ À
¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À ¨
À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªj À UÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É
G¯ÉèÃR (3) gÀ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À À¸¨ À sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸Àzj À
«µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É

- 32 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, £ÀUg À ¸
À À¨sÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR (4) gÀr ¨É¼U À Á« f¯ÉèAiÀÄ £ÀUg À À ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À ° À è
UÀÆ¥ æ ï 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ £Àqz É À

¸À¨A sÉ iÀÄ°è ¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðjgÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À°è w½¹gÀÄªÀ 8 d£À ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À
AiÀiÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀZ æ ÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹ ¸À®ºÉ/DPÉëÃ¥ÀuU É ÁV f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ
¨É¼U À Á« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ £ÀUg À ¸
À ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À À £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ
®UÀwÛ¸® À Ä ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥Àu/É ¸À®ºÉU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.12.2017 gÀ
M¼ÀUÁV ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. D ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨À sA É iÀÄ
£ÉÆÃn¸ï ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀZ æ ÄÀ gÀ¥r À ¹ G¯ÉèÃR (5)
gÀr AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥Àu/É ¸À®ºÉU¼ À ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ F
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É C®èzÃÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ D CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèU° À Ã CxÀªÁ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À ¸À ¨
À sAÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèU° À Ã
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. G¯ÉèÃR (6) gÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£ À z À r À
ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼U À Á« gÀªg À ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸À®ºÉ/DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ
¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥£ À z À °À è w½¹ UÀÆ¥ æ ï 'r' ªÀÈAzÀzÀ
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgg À À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 10 ªÀµð À ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ
¸ÀPª Àæ ÀiÁwUÉÆ½¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÀÄÝ. EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz É ÀÄ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸Àzj À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁªÉ zÁR°¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¯ÉèÃR (7) gÀ,
¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è
«ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ ºÀAvÀz° À ègÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛz.É

ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌt¹ Â zÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, oÀgÁ«£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
wzÀÄÝ¥r À DUÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ªÀg¢ À ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¥Àª£ À ÀÄß F »AzÉ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¸z À ÃÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 7 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
£ÀAvÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÉ¤¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgz É ÀÄ ¸Àzg À À
«µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ,
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁªÉ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀArPÉªÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgª À £
À ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É
¥À¸
æ ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀzjÀ ¥ÀPæ gÀ t
À ªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ ºÀAvÀz°À èzÀÄÝ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀzA À vÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀª æ ÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CAvÁ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃUÉ vÀg¯ À ÁVzÉ.

AiÉÆÃd£Á ¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ,
f¯Áè £ÀUg
À Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆÃ±À, ¨É¼U À Á«.

14. All these endorsements would run foul of what the

Apex Court has held from time to time. This Court, in W.P.

No.100556 of 2024 disposed on 20.02.2025, rendered in the

- 33 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

aftermath of the judgment in the case of
UMADEVI
(supra),

has held as follows:

"14. As observed hereinabove, the Apex Court
rendered its judgment in the case of UMADEVI (3) on
10-04-2006. Relevant paragraphs are already quoted
hereinabove. Subsequent to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of UMADEVI (3), considering the case
of UMADEVI (3), the Apex Court in several judgments
held and affirmed the right of several employees for
regularization under several circumstances. The Apex
Court in the case of
NARENDRA KUMAR
TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND2
, holds as follows:

"7. The purpose and intent of the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was
therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or
illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to
confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly
appointed in the past.

The fact that the State of
Jharkhand continued with the irregular
appointments for almost a decade after the
decision in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes
that it was all right to continue with irregular
appointments, and whenever required, terminate
the services of the irregularly appointed employees
on the ground that they were irregularly appointed.

This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the
employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of
Damocles over their head. This is precisely
what
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L.
Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
826] sought to avoid.
(2018) 8 SCC 238

- 34 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

8. If a strict and literal interpretation,
forgetting the spirit of the decision of the
Constitution Bench in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration
then no irregularly appointed employee of the State
of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that
State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and
the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other
words, in this manner the pernicious practice
of indefinitely continuing irregularly
appointed employees would be perpetuated
contrary to the intent of the Constitution
Bench.

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

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

11. The impugned judgment and order [
Anil
Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand
, 2016 SCC
OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by the High Court is set
aside in view of our conclusions. The State should
take a decision within four months from today on

- 35 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

regularisation of the status of the appellants. The
appeals are accordingly disposed of."

(Emphasis supplied)

15. Later, the Apex Court in the case of
SHEO
NARAIN NAGAR v. STATE OF U.P.3
, holds as follows:

"6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent has relied upon para 44 of the
decision in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], 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 could have been
regularised 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 regularisation of their
services.

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario,
it is painful to note that the decision in
Umadevi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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
Umadevi (3) [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. The prime intendment of
the decision was that the employment process
should be by fair means and not by back door entry
(2018) 13 SCC 432

- 36 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

and in the available pay scale. That spirit of
the
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently
overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities.

We regretfully make the
observation that
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] has not been 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 regularising the services of incumbents.

They are being continued in service without
payment of due salary for which they are
entitled on the basis of
Articles 14
, 16
read
with
Article 34(1)(d)
of the Constitution of
India as if they have no constitutional
protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1
SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : 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
downtrodden 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
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753].

Thus, the time
has come to stop the situation where
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be

- 37 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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/ad hoc basis or
otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible
when we consider the pith and substance of true
spirit in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].

8. Coming to the facts of the instant case,
there was a direction issued way back in the year
1999, to consider the regularisation of the
appellants. However, regularisation 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 the
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.

9. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. 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

- 38 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were
required to be appointed on regular basis as a
one-time measure, as
laid down in
para 53
of
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. Since
the appellants had completed 10 years of
service and temporary status had been given
by the respondents with retrospective effect
from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of
the appellants be regularised from the said
date i.e. 2.10.2002, consequential benefits
and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the
appellants within a period of three months
from today."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. The Apex Court in the case of
CHANDER
MOHAN NEGI v. STATE OF H.P.4
, holds as follows:

"11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the
schemes in question were notified in the years
2001 and 2003 under which appointments were
made with regard to Primary Assistant Teachers
and Teachers in other categories. At the relevant
point of time, nobody has questioned either the
schemes or the appointments. It is the specific case
of the respondent State that such appointments
have not affected the writ petitioners and the
Department was not in a position to leave the
schools, Teachers deficient for long since it would
have affected the studies of the students very
badly. Therefore, it was the case of the State that
Teachers had been appointed under various
schemes at that point of time and such
appointments have been made up to the year 2007
and have no impact on the appellants since they
have completed their two-year JBT training in the
year 2011. As is evident from the order [
Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944]
under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, the appellant-writ petitioners have not
even chosen to file rejoinder and the stand taken
by the State thus has remained uncontroverted.
(2020) 5 SCC 732

- 39 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Further, it is also to be noted that when such
appointments were made during the years 2001
and 2003 the writ petitions came to be filed in the
years 2012 and 2013. As the writ petitioners have
claimed interest for their appointment, the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly held [
Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944]
that such petitions cannot be considered as the
public interest litigation. Such a writ petition which
was filed by the petitioners who came to be
qualified only in the year 2011 are not entitled for
any relief on the ground of unexplained laches and
inordinate delay of about more than 10 years in
approaching the court for questioning the
appointments. Though relief was sought against the
State to deny the benefit of regularisation to the
appointed Teachers, they were not even impleaded
as party respondents. An association was
impleaded as third respondent but without
furnishing any material to show that at least
majority of appointees are members of such
association.

So far as Primary Assistant Teachers
Scheme of 2003, which was the subject-matter of
letters patent appeal arising out of CWP No. 3303
of 2012-A filed by Chander Mohan Negi and others,
is concerned, the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
2813 of 2017 except Appellants 1, 2 and 4 have
withdrawn [
Chander Mohan Negi v. State of
H.P.
, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 459] the appeal and
Appellants 1 and 4 are already appointed as JBTs.
Insofar as the only appellant viz. Appellant 2, Rajiv
Chauhan is concerned, it is stated that he is
qualified and there are vacant posts and he can be
considered if he applies to any of the existing
vacancies. So far as the Primary Assistant Teacher
Scheme is concerned, same was notified as early
as on 27-8-2003. As is evident from the Scheme
itself, the object of the Scheme appears to be to
compulsorily enrol children in schools for
elementary and primary education in the remote
areas to achieve the goals as set by the
Government while enacting the Himachal Pradesh
Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a
view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to
children. As per the Scheme, the eligibility was

- 40 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

10+2 from a recognised Board/University and the
candidates with higher qualifications were also
eligible and candidates with professional
qualifications were to be preferred. As per the
regular Recruitment Rules the requisite qualification
for the post of JBT Teacher during the relevant time
was 10+2 with 50% marks and JBT certificate. As
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the State that initially though 3500 odd
Teachers were appointed, as of now there are only
a total of 3294 Teachers working in this category
and out of this about 1866 had the qualification of
10+2 with more than 50% marks at the relevant
point of engagement. Out of the balance, 1015 had
10+2 with less than 50% marks, but they had
higher qualification such as BA/MA/M Sc or B Ed,
etc. Further, it is also brought to our notice that out
of all the candidates, 3294 candidates who are
presently working have acquired the professional
qualification of diploma in elementary education or
have undergone Professional Development
Programme for Elementary Teachers. In that view
of the matter, we are of the view that when the
appointees appointed under the scheme have
completed more than almost 15 years of service
now and also have acquired the professional
qualifications, they cannot be denied regularisation
at this point of time. As the appointments were
made as per the schemes notified by the
Government such appointments cannot be treated
as illegal, if at all they can be considered irregular.
When it is the plea of the State that in view of the
hard topography/tribal areas in the State, large
number of vacancies were there even in single
teacher schools and to achieve the object of the
Himachal Pradesh Primary Education Act, 1997
such steps were taken, there is no reason to
disbelieve the same, more so, in absence of any
affidavit by way of rejoinder by the writ petitioners
before the High Court controverting the allegations
in the reply filed on behalf of the State.

12. Even with regard to the Para Teachers
Policy under which various category of Teachers
were appointed in the year 2003 pursuant to policy

- 41 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

notified on 17-9-2003 it is clear from the record
placed before this Court that all the persons who
were recruited as Para Teachers were fully qualified
as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e.
the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class
III (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules,
1973. In view of the stand of the State that such
policy was necessitated due to large number of
vacant posts which have arisen year after year and
which could not be filled since the State Selection
Subordinate Board, Hamirpur, which was
responsible for the selection of Teachers had come
under a cloud and the selection process had come
to a halt, such appointments cannot be rendered as
illegal. Such aspect is also evident from the policy
itself. Even in other category of the Grant-in-Aid to
Parent Teacher Association Rules, all Teachers
appointed under the Scheme fulfil the educational
qualifications prescribed in the Rules. For such kind
of Teachers, the Cabinet has taken decision to take
over the Teachers on contract basis after
completion of eight years of service which period
was later reduced to seven years. It is also brought
to our notice during the course of arguments that
out of the total 6799 Teachers, 5017 Teachers were
already taken over on contract basis by the State
Government and only 1782 could not be taken over
in view of the interim orders passed by this Court.

13. It is true that in the initial schemes
notified by the Government, there was a
condition that such appointees should not
seek regularisation/ absorption but at the
same time for no fault of them, they cannot be
denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view
of the requirement of the State, their services
were extended from time to time and now all
the appointees have completed more than 15
years of service. For majority of the appointed
Teachers under the various schemes, benefit
was already extended and some left over
candidates were denied on account of interim
orders passed by this Court. With regard to
Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that
all the candidates have completed Special

- 42 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed
Course and also had obtained special JBT
certificate after 5 years' continuous service in
terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education
Code, 1985. The judgments relied on by
learned counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan also
would not render any assistance to the case
of the appellants herein for the reason that
there was unexplained and inordinate delay
on the part of the appellants in approaching
the High Court and further having regard to
explanation offered by the State about the
need of framing such policies to meet the
immediate requirement to fill up single
teacher schools which were vacant for a very
long time, having regard to topographical
conditions, which is not even controverted by
way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In
such view of the matter, taking the totality of
peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are
of the view that the view expressed by this
Court in the judgments relied on cannot be
applied to the facts of the case on hand. All
the appointed candidates are working for the
meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified
by the Government. Except the vague
submission that such schemes were framed
only to make backdoor entries, there is no
material placed on record to buttress such
submission. Further it is also to be noted that
though such schemes were notified as early
as in 2003, nobody has questioned such
policies and appointments up to 2012 and
2013. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of
2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without
even impleading the appointees as party
respondents. In the writ petition, there was
no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners
disputing the averments of the State as stated
in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the
nature of such appointments, appointments
made as per policies cannot be termed as
illegal. Having regard to material placed
before this Court and having regard to
reasons recorded in the impugned

- 43 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

order [
Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC
OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of
the view that no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned judgment [
Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC OnLine HP
5944] of the High Court."

(Emphasis supplied)

17. Earlier to the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex Court in
the case of
AMARENDRA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA5
, had held as
follows:

"42. The decision in Umadevi (3) case [
State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], as noticed earlier,
permitted regularisation of regular appointments
and not illegal appointments.

Question, however, is
whether the appointments in the instant case could
be described as illegal and if they were not,
whether the State could be directed to regularise
the services of the degree-holder Junior Engineers
who have worked as ad hoc Assistant Engineers for
such a long period, not only on the analogy of the
legislative enactment for regularisation but also on
the principle underlying para 53 of the decision
in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].

43. As to what would constitute an
irregular appointment is no longer res integra.
The decision of this Court in
State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari
[(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], has examined
that question and explained the principle
regarding regularisation as enunciated
in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. The decision
in that case

summed up the following three essentials for
regularisation : (1) the employees have
(2014) 4 SCC 583

- 44 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

worked for ten years or more, (2) that they
have so worked in a duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the
interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3)
they should have possessed the minimum
qualification stipulated for the appointment.
Subject to these three requirements being
satisfied, even if the appointment process did
not involve open competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and
not illegal and thereby qualify for
regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is
apposite and may be extracted at this
stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], SCC p. 250)

"7.
It is evident from the above that there is
an exception to the general principles against
'regularisation' enunciated in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], if the following conditions are
fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have
worked for 10 years or more in a 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

- 45 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

appointments are considered to be
irregular."

44. It is nobody's case that the degree-
holder Junior Engineers were not qualified for
appointment as Assistant Engineers as even
they possess degrees from recognised
institutions. It is also nobody's case that they
were not appointed against the sanctioned
post. There was some debate as to the actual
number of vacancies available from time to
time but we have no hesitation in holding that
the appointments made were at all relevant
points of time against sanctioned posts. The
information provided by Mr. Nageswara Rao,
learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the State of Orissa, in fact,
suggests that the number of vacancies was at
all points of time more than the number of
appointments made on ad hoc basis. It is also
clear that each one of the degree-holders has
worked for more than 10 years ever since his
appointment as ad hoc Assistant Engineer. It
is in that view difficult to describe these
appointments of the Stipendiary Engineers on
ad hoc basis to be illegal so as to fall beyond
the purview of the scheme envisaged
in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753].

45. The upshot of the above discussion is
that not only because in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] this Court did not disturb the
appointments already made or regularisation
granted, but also because the decision itself
permitted regularisation in case of irregular
appointments, the legislative enactment granting
such regularisation does not call for interference at
this late stage when those appointed or regularised
have already started retiring having served their
respective departments, in some cases for as long
as 22 years."

(Emphasis supplied)

- 46 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

18. A three Judges bench of the Apex Court
considering the case of
UMADEVI (3
) supra and
subsequent judgments, in the case of
PREM
SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.
, holds as follows:

"36. There are some of the employees who
have not been regularised in spite of having
rendered the services for 30-40 or more years
whereas they have been superannuated. As they
have worked in the work-charged establishment,
not against any particular project, their services
ought to have been regularised under the
Government instructions and even as per the
decision of this Court in
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(
3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. This Court in
the said decision

has laid down that in case services have been
rendered for more than ten years without the
cover of the Court's order, as one-time
measure, the services be regularised of such
employees. In the facts of the case, those
employees who have worked for ten years or
more should have been regularised. It would
not be proper to regulate them for
consideration of regularisation as others have
been regularised, we direct that their services
be treated as a regular one. However, it is
made clear that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in wages had
they been continued in service regularly
before attaining the age of superannuation.
They shall be entitled to receive the pension
as if they have retired from the regular
establishment and the services rendered by
them right from the day they entered the
work-charged establishment shall be counted
as qualifying service for purpose of pension.

37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the
U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that
services rendered in the work-charged
(2019) 10 SCC 516

- 47 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

establishment shall be treated as qualifying service
under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The
arrears of pension shall be confined to three years
only before the date of the order. Let the
admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three
months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the
employees are allowed and filed by the State are
dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

19. The Apex Court later, in the case of JAGGO v.
UNION OF INDIA7 has held as follows:

"7. They urged the High Court to
recognize their long and continuous service,
the nature of their work, and the lack of any
backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted
that they had functioned without any break,
performed tasks equivalent to regular
employees, and had been assigned duties
essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness,
and maintenance of the respondent's offices.
The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's
decision and the submissions advanced,
concluded that the petitioners before it were
part-time workers who had not been
appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had
they performed a sufficient duration of full-
time service to satisfy the criteria for
regularization. It relied on the principle laid down
in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi3
holding that the petitioners could not claim a
vested right to be absorbed or regularized without
fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court
further observed that the petitioners did not
possess the minimum educational qualifications
ordinarily required for regular appointments, and
additionally noted that the employer had
subsequently outsourced the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance activities.
Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant
the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

- 48 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the
appellants have approached this Court by way of
these appeals.

8. On behalf of the appellants, the following
arguments have been advanced before us:

(i). Continuous and Substantive
Engagement: The appellants emphasize
their long, uninterrupted service spanning
well over a decade--and in some instances,
exceeding two decades. They argue that
their duties were neither sporadic nor
project-based but permanent and integral to
the daily functioning of the respondent's
offices.

(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities--

such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and
other maintenance tasks--were not casual or
peripheral. Instead, they were central to
ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional
work environment, effectively aligning with
roles typically associated with regular posts.

(iii). Absence of Performance
Issues: Throughout their tenure, the

appellants were never issued any warning or
adverse remarks. They highlight that their
work was consistently satisfactory, and there
was no indication from the respondents that
their performance was not satisfactory or
required improvement.

(iv). Compliance with 'Uma Devi'
Guidelines: The appellants assert that their
appointments were not "illegal" but at most
"irregular." Drawing on the principles
laid
down in

Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi
, they submit that
long-serving employees in irregular
appointments--who fulfil essential,
sanctioned functions--are entitled to
consideration for regularization.

- 49 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The
appellants point out that individuals with
fewer years of service or similar
engagements have been regularized. They
contend that denying them the same benefit,
despite their longer service and crucial role,
constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment.

(vi). Irrelevance of Educational
Qualifications: The appellants reject the
respondents' reliance on formal educational
requirements, noting that such criteria were
never enforced earlier and that the nature of
their work does not inherently demand
formal schooling. They argue that
retrospectively imposing such qualifications
is unjustified given their proven capability
over many years.

(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the
appellants submit that the High Court erred
by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms
of engagement and ignoring the substantive
reality of their long, integral service. They
maintain that fairness, equity, and
established judicial principles call for their
regularization rather than abrupt termination

9. On the other hand, the following primary
arguments have been advanced before us on behalf
of the Respondents:

(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents
maintain that the appellants were engaged
purely on a part-time, contractual basis,
limited to a few hours a day, and that their
work was never intended to be permanent or
full-time.

(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert
that the appellants were not appointed
against any sanctioned posts. According to
the respondents, without sanctioned
vacancies, there can be no question of

- 50 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

regularization or absorption into the
permanent workforce.

(iii). Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi'
Criteria: Relying heavily on
Secretary, State
of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
(supra), the
respondents argue that the appellants do not
meet the conditions necessary for
regularization. They emphasize that merely
serving a long period on a part-time or ad-
hoc basis does not create a right to be
regularized.

(iv). Educational Qualifications: The
respondents contend that even if the
appellants were to be considered for regular
appointments, they do not possess the
minimum educational qualifications
mandated for regular recruitment. This, in
their view, disqualifies the appellants from
being absorbed into regular service.

(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy
Decision: The respondents point out that
they have chosen to outsource the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance work to a
private agency. This, they argue, is a
legitimate administrative policy decision
aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be
interfered with by the courts.

(vi). No Fundamental Right to
Regularization: Finally, the respondents
underscore that no employee, merely by
virtue of long-standing temporary or part-
time engagement, acquires a vested right to
be regularized. They maintain that the
appellants' claims are devoid of any legal
entitlement and that the High Court was
correct in dismissing their petition.

10. Having given careful consideration
to the submissions advanced and the material
on record, we find that the appellants' long
and uninterrupted service, for periods

- 51 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

extending well beyond ten years, cannot be
brushed aside merely by labelling their initial
appointments as part-time or contractual. The
essence of their employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained
contribution, the integral nature of their work,
and the fact that no evidence suggests their
entry was through any illegal or surreptitious
route.

11. The appellants, throughout their tenure,
were engaged in performing essential duties that
were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of
the offices of the Central Water Commission
(CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis,
were responsible for maintaining hygiene,
cleanliness, and a conducive working environment
within the office premises. Their duties involved
sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors,
workstations, and common areas--a set of
responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic
operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No.
5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions
akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical
maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of
outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly
surroundings.

12. Despite being labelled as "part-time
workers," the appellants performed these
essential tasks on a daily and continuous
basis over extensive periods, ranging from
over a decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or temporary in
nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and
akin to the responsibilities typically
associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover,
the respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks during the
appellants' tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that
these were not regular posts lacks merit, as
the nature of the work performed by the

- 52 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

appellants was perennial and fundamental to
the functioning of the offices. The recurring
nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of
how their initial engagements were labelled.
It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private
agencies after the appellants' termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with
another, further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor
occasional.

14. xxx

15. xxx

16. The appellants' consistent
performance over their long tenures further
solidifies their claim for regularization. At no
point during their engagement did the
respondents raise any issues regarding their
competence or performance. On the contrary,
their services were extended repeatedly over
the years, and their remuneration, though
minimal, was incrementally increased which
was an implicit acknowledgment of their
satisfactory performance. The respondents'
belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service
appears to be an afterthought and lacks
credibility.

17. As for the argument relating to
educational qualifications, we find it untenable in
the present context. The nature of duties the
appellants performed--cleaning, sweeping, dusting,
and gardening--does not inherently mandate
formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust
to rely on educational criteria that were never
central to their engagement or the performance of
their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents
themselves have, by their conduct, shown that
such criteria were not strictly enforced in other

- 53 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

cases of regularization. The appellants' long-
standing satisfactory performance itself attests to
their capability to discharge these functions,
making rigid insistence on formal educational
requirements an unreasonable hurdle.

18. xxx

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the
appellants' roles were not only essential but also
indistinguishable from those of regular employees.
Their sustained contributions over extended
periods, coupled with absence of any adverse
record, warrant equitable treatment and
regularization of their services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination,
amounts to manifest injustice and must be
rectified.

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 v. Union of India5
, 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

- 54 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

- 55 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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 Declaration6 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 v. Microsoft
Corporation7 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

- 56 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

- 57 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

• 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

- 58 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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."

(Emphasis supplied)

Again, the Apex Court in the case of
SHRIPAL v. NAGAR
NIGAM8
, has held as follows:

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

3.1. The Appellant Workmen claim to have
been engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the
Horticulture Department of the Respondent
Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, since the year
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221

- 59 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

1998 (in some instances, since 1999). According to
them, they continuously discharged horticultural
and maintenance duties-- such as planting trees,
maintaining parks, and beautifying public spaces--
under the direct supervision of the Respondent
Employer. They further allege that no formal
appointment letters were ever issued to them, and
that they were persistently denied minimum wages,
weekly offs, national holidays, and other statutory
benefits.

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

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

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

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

- 60 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

Disputes Act, 1947, and directed
reinstatement with 30% back wages.

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

3.5. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the
awards (i.e., those granting reinstatement), the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam,
filed several writ petitions before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Labour
Court's findings. On the other hand, the workmen
whose claims were dismissed by the other set of
awards also approached the High Court by filing
their own writ petitions. All these writ petitions
were heard together, culminating in the common
judgment dated 01.03.2019, which partly modified
the Labour Court's conclusions.

3.6. Through the impugned judgment,
the High Court held that while the Labour
Court was correct in exercising jurisdiction
under the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
(since
municipalities could be treated as "industry"),
there remained factual complexities as to
whether the workmen were genuinely on the
rolls of the Nagar Nigam or were provided by
contractors. The High Court also noted that
the State Government had, by
notifications/orders, placed a ban on fresh
recruitments in Municipal Corporations,
thereby restricting direct appointments to any
post. Ultimately, the High Court partially
modified the relief granted, directing re-
engagement of the workmen on daily wages,
with pay equivalent to the minimum in the

- 61 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

regular pay scale of Gardeners, while allowing
future consideration of their regularization if
permissible by law.

4. Both the Appellant Workmen and the
Respondent Employer have now approached this
Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The
workmen primarily seek full reinstatement with
back wages and a direction to secure their
regularization, whereas the Respondent Employer
seeks to quash the modifications ordered by the
High Court on the ground that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction by granting partial relief
akin to regular employees, contrary to
constitutional provisions and the State's ban on
recruitment.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant
Workmen made the following submissions:

I. Continuous Service & Comparable Duties :

The Appellant Workmen had continuously
discharged horticultural and maintenance duties--
like planting trees, upkeep of public parks, and
general beautification--under the direct supervision
and control of the Respondent Employer for periods
often exceeding a decade. They insist such
longstanding, continuous work parallels that of
permanent Gardeners.

II. Direct Engagement & Wage Disbursement :
They aver that their wages, though inadequate,
were paid directly by the Horticulture Department
of the Respondent Employer, nullifying the
Employer's claim of contractual hiring. Muster rolls
and internal notes are cited to show direct
employer-employee relations.

III. Illegal Termination : Alleging violation of

Sections 6E
and
6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Appellant Workmen maintain their
abrupt termination in July 2005 (during pendency
of conciliation proceedings) was devoid of due
process and statutory payments, rendering it
patently illegal.

- 62 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

IV. Entitlement to Reinstatement &
Regularization : Given their long service and the
principle of "equal pay for equal work," the
Appellant Workmen submit they deserve full
reinstatement with back wages and a legitimate
pathway to regularization, as opposed to the partial
relief of mere daily-wage re-engagement
prescribed by the High Court.

6. On the other, the learned counsel for the
Respondent Employer, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
made the following submissions:

I. Compliance with Constitutional Requirements :

Emphasizing the constitutional scheme of public
employment, it is urged that there was (and
remains) a ban on fresh recruitment in Municipal
Corporations, and no proper selection process was
ever followed to appoint the Workmen on any
sanctioned posts.

II. No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship :
The Respondent Employer contends that all
horticulture work was carried out through
independent contractors appointed via tender
processes. It claims any partial wage
documentation cited by the Workmen fails to
establish direct engagement.

III.
Inapplicability of Regularization : Relying
on
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1
, it is
asserted that no daily wager can claim permanent
absorption without adherence to constitutional
requirements and availability of duly sanctioned
vacancies.

IV. Inadequate Proof of 240 Days' Service : The
Respondent Employer points out that the Workmen
did not convincingly demonstrate they completed
240 days of continuous work in any calendar year,
thus undermining the assertion that their cessation
from service was illegal.

- 63 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

V. Challenge to Modified Relief: Finally, it argues
that the High Court's direction to pay minimum-
scale wages and to consider the Workmen for
future regularization oversteps legal boundaries,
disregards the recruitment ban, and fosters an
impermissible avenue of public employment. The
Respondent Employer, therefore, seeks the
quashing of the impugned judgment.

7. Having heard the arguments and
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the nature of engagement
of the Appellant Workmen, the admitted shortage
of Gardeners, and the circumstances under which
their services were brought to an end, merit closer
scrutiny.

8. It is undisputed that, while the Appellant
Workmen were pressing for regularization and
proper wages through pending conciliation
proceedings, the Respondent Employer proceeded
to discontinue their services, without issuing prior
notice or granting retrenchment compensation. At
this juncture, it is to have a look at the
requirements of
Section 6E
of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which has been reproduced
hereunder:--

"6E. [Conditions of service, etc. to
remain unchanged in certain circumstances
during the pendency of proceedings.
[Inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957.]

(1) During the pendency of any conciliation
proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a
Board or of any proceeding before a Labour
Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial
dispute, no employer shall, -

(a) in regard to any matter connected
with the dispute, alter, to the
prejudice of the workmen concerned in
such dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to them immediately before

- 64 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

the commencement of such
proceeding, or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether
by dismissal or otherwise any
workman concerned in such dispute
save with the express permission in
writing of the authority before which
the proceeding is pending.

(2) During the pendency of any such
proceeding in respect of an industrial
dispute, the employer may, in accordance
with the standing orders applicable to a
workman concerned in such dispute, -

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not
connected with the dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to that
workman immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding, or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with
the dispute, discharge or punish,
whether by dismissal or otherwise:

Provided that no such workman
shall be discharged or dismissed,
unless he has been paid wages for one
month and an application has been
made by the employer to the authority
before which the proceeding is
pending for approval of the action
taken by the employer.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (2) no employer shall during the
pendency of any such proceeding in respect
of an industrial dispute, take any action
against any protected workman concerned in
such dispute, -

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such
protected workman, the conditions of

- 65 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

service applicable to him immediately
before the commencement of such
proceeding, or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether
by dismissal or otherwise, such
protected workman, such with the
express permission in writing of the
authority before which the proceeding
is pending. Explanation. - For the
purposes of this sub-section, a
'protected workman' in relation to an
establishment, means a workman
who, being an officer of a registered
trade union connected with the
establishment, is recognized as such
in accordance with rules made in this
behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of
workmen to be recognized as protected
workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3)
shall not exceed one per cent of the total
number of workmen employed therein
subject to a minimum number of five
protected workmen and a maximum number
of one hundred protected workmen and for
the aforesaid purpose, the State Government
may make rules providing for the distribution
of such protected workmen among various
trade unions, if any, connected with the
establishment and the manner in which they
may be chosen and recognized as protected
workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an
application to a Board, Labour Court or
Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2)
for approval of the action taken by him, the
authority concerned shall, without delay,
hear such application and pass, as
expeditiously as possible, such order in
relation thereto as it deems fit."

- 66 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

9. On a plain reading of this section, we
can deduce that any unilateral alteration in
service conditions, including termination, is
impermissible during the pendency of such
proceedings unless prior approval is obtained
from the appropriate authority. The record in
the present case does not indicate that the
Respondent Employer ever sought or was
granted the requisite approval. Prima facie,
therefore, this conduct reflects a deliberate
attempt to circumvent the lawful claims of the
workmen, particularly when their dispute over
regularization and wages remained sub
judice.

10. The Respondent Employer consistently
labelled the Appellant Workmen as casual
employees (or workers engaged through an
unnamed contractor), yet there is no material proof
of adherence to
Section 6N
of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a proper
notice or wages in lieu thereof as well as
retrenchment compensation. In this context,
whether an individual is classified as regular or
temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations
under the Act must be met in all cases attracting
Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without
statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.

11. xxxx

12. xxxx

13. xxxx

14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on
Umadevi
(supra)2 to contend that
daily-wage or temporary employees cannot
claim permanent absorption in the absence of
statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma
Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are "illegal" and those that
are "irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions.

- 67 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a
shield to justify exploitative engagements
persisting for years without the Employer
undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the
record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for
permanent horticultural staff the alleged
asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though
real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant
Workmen continuously rendered their
services over several years, sometimes
spanning more than a decade. Even if certain
muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer's failure to furnish such records--
despite directions to do so--allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and
legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader
critique of indefinite "temporary" employment
practices as done by a recent judgment of this
court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following
paragraphs:

"xxxxxxxxx"

16. xxx

17. xxx

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:

- 68 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

- 69 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed
by the workmen are allowed, whereas the
appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are
dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in the afore-quoted cases, which were in the
aftermath of the judgment in the case of
UMADEVI (3
)
supra, would in unmistakable terms indicate that
regularization of employees is not a concept that is
obliterated, but could be considered on several
parameters
laid down in
the said judgments. One
unmistakable stream that runs through judicial thinking of
judgments of the Apex Court is that, regularization of the
services of the employees engaged to work for the State
for long years should be considered, failing which, it
would amount to violation of
Article 14
of the Constitution
of India."

15. In the light of the issue standing covered by the

judgments quoted supra, the petition deserves to succeed with

the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the case of these

petitioners for regularization of their services from the date on

which they completed 10 years from the date of their initial

appointment. It is further germane to notice the Subsequent

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DHARAM SINGH

- 70 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER9, wherein

the Apex Court has held as follows:

"8. 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
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
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

- 71 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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
Judgment.

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 Judgment.

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the

- 72 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

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 Judgment.

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
of the Constitution of India"

16. The Apex Court holds that keeping the persons in

continuous ad hoc employment would itself become arbitrary and

violative of the
Article 14
of the Constitution of India. In that

light, the direction would ensue to the respondents to consider

the case of these petitioners to regularise their services.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

- 73 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13897

WP No. 105364 of 2025

C/W WP No. 105664 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The petitions are allowed.

(ii) The impugned order issued by respondent No.2,
dated 04.08.2022, vide Annexure-J, and the
impugned endorsements issued by respondent
No.3 dated 12.09.2022 23.07.2024 vide
Annexure-K and Anneuxre-M respectively stand
quashed in W.P. No.105364 of 2025.

(iii) The impugned order issued by respondent No.2,
dated 04.08.2022, vide Annexure-G, the
impugned endorsement issued by respondent
No.3, dated 12.09.2022, vide Annexure-G1 and
the impugned endorsement issued by respondent
No.5, dated 23.07.2024, vide Annexure-H stand
quashed in W.P. No.105664 of 2025.

(iv) The State shall now consider the cases of these
petitioners for regularising their services bearing in
mind the observations made in the course of the
order, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if
not earlier.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79