Om Prakash Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5960 of 2025

¶3

Om Prakash Singh Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶7

Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kumar Yadav, Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for petitioner and learned State Counsel for
opposite parties.

¶11

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated
30.04.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for
retrospective regularization has been rejected.
Further prayer has been sought for a direction to
opposite party to amend the regularization order of
petitioner dated 24.02.2016 to give it effect from
20.12.2001 and for payment of pension and another
service benefit accordingly. Benefit of judgment
and order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Special Appeal
No.56 of 2022 has also been sought.

¶12

3. It has been submitted that petitioner was
initially engaged in service on the post of Junior
Engineer on a fixed salary of Rs.1600/- per month
vide order dated 18.12.1990. The said order was
cancelled vide order dated 06.07.1993 allegedly due
to appointment of a regular Junior Engineer in the
Department.

¶13

4. The said order dated 06.07.1993 was challenged

¶14

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

by petitioner in Writ Petition No.4938 (S/S) of
1993 in which interim protection was granted vide
order dated 06.07.1993 whereunder petitioner was
permitted to continue to work. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated
03.03.2005 directing opposite parties to consider
petitioner's claim for regularization. In pursuance
thereof, vide order dated 14.01.2011, petitioner's
case was rejected leading to filing of claim
petition no.2239 of 2010.

¶17

5. The said claim petition preferred before U.P.
State Public Services Tribunal was allowed by means
of judgment and order dated 14.03.2013 and in
pursuance thereof, petitioners services were
regularized with immediate effect vide order dated
24.02.2016. The petitioner subsequently
superannuated on 31.12.2019 and the post retiral
benefits such as leave encashment and group
insurance have already been paid but pensionary
benefits are yet eluding.

¶18

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
after superannuation, he preferred claim petition
no.1810 of 2025 which has been disposed of vide
order dated 31.05.2025 directing opposite parties
to decide petitioner's representation regarding
grant of pensionary benefits and it is in pursuance
thereof that he submitted a representation dated
17.03.2025, under provisions of U.P. (post within
purview of Public Service Commission)
Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (IIIrd
Amendment) Rules 2001 seeking benefits of judgment
rendered by this Court. It is in pursuance thereof
that the impugned order has been passed rejecting
petitioner’s claim.

¶19

3

¶20

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶21

7. It has been submitted that in view of
notification of the Rules of 2001, it was incumbent
upon opposite parties to have considered the case
of petitioner for regularization without any
representation being made by the petitioner. It is
submitted that it is only on account of delay by
the opposite parties that petitioner was ultimately
regularized on 24.02.2016 i.e. much after the date
on which he was required to be regularized in
service.

¶22

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in
similar circumstances, one Raj Bahadur Pastor
 (supra) had filed Writ A No.3660 of 2021 which was
allowed by means of judgment and order dated
19.08.2021 directing the opposite parties to
calculate services rendered by the said petitioner
on consolidated pay for purposes of qualifying
service for pensionary benefits. The said judgment
relied upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh versus
State of U.P. & Ors(2019)10 SCC 516 as well
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of State of U.P. & Ors. versus Bhanu Pratap
Sharma (Special Appeal 97 of 2021).

¶23

9. The said judgment in the case of Raj Bahadur
Pastor (supra) was thereafter challenged in Special
Appeal No.21 of 2022 which was dismissed by means
of judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 which was
also upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (c)No.11915 of 2022.

¶24

10. It is submitted that subsequently other
similarly situated persons filed various writ
petitions claiming the same benefits but were
dismissed but Special Appeal No.56 of 2022 and

¶25

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶26

4

¶27

other connected special appeals were thereafter
allowed by means of judgment and orders dated
03.04.2024 by Division Bench of this Court granting
retrospective regularization to those appellants.
The said judgments has thereafter been upheld by
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) Diary
No.25700 of 2024.

¶28

11. It is therefore submitted that the issue with
regard to retrospective regularization and grant of
pensionary benefits having already been decided by
two Division Benches of this Court as upheld by
Supreme Court, benefit of same is liable to accrue
to petitioner as well.

¶29

12. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter
affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by
learned counsel for petitioner with the submission
that petitioner was not appointed against any post
by any competent authority and was in fact
appointed only on a fixed salary of Rs.1,600/- per
month and therefore the initial appointment itself
was de hors the Service Rules. It is also submitted
that there is no statutory provision for
retrospective regularization of any person
appointed on consolidated pay. He has also adverted
to the Government Order dated 31.3.2021 and
6.10.2022 wherein it has been provided that
regularization with retrospective effect would
stand cancelled. It is also submitted that benefit
of judgment rendered in the case of Raj Bahadur
Pastor (supra) would be unavailable to petitioner
since the question of law was left open by Supreme
Court. It is also submitted that similarly
situated person, Shailendra Pratap Singh, also
filed Writ Petition No.5685 of 2022 which was
allowed but Special Appeal Defective No.677 of 2023

¶30

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶31

5

¶32

challenging the same is yet pending consideration.
It is therefore submitted that once regularization
has been effected from a particular date, no
retrospectivity can be granted to petitioner.

¶33

13. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by
learned counsel for parties and perusal of material
on record, the facts as indicated here-in-above are
admitted. It is also an admitted fact that
petitioner's case was subsequently considered for
regularization in terms of directions issued by
Tribunal and he was regularized in service vide
dated 24.02.2016. It is also admitted that ever
since the initial engagement of petitioner in
service since the year 1990 on the post of Junior
Engineer with the department, he has continued as
such ever since, particularly in pursuance of
interim protection granted on 06.07.1993.

¶34

14. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as the
fact that petitioner stood regularized in service
on 24.02.2016, the aspect of retrospectivity being
granted to such regularization requires
adjudication.

¶35

15. It is evident from record that in similar
circumstances, one Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) had
filed writ A No. 3660 of 2021 which was allowed in
terms of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the
case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu Pratap
Sharma (supra). Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 there
against has considered all the relevant aspects in
the following manner:

¶36

"29. In the facts of the present case, we
find that neither engagement of
respondent/petitioner was in a work charge
establishment, nor is it admitted anywhere

¶37

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶38

6

¶39

that engagement/appointment of
respondent/petitioner was in accordance with
the service rules. The specific case of the
respondent in para 11 of the counter
affidavit that appointment of
respondent/petitioner was not made by the
competent authority. There is no discussion
in the judgment of the learned Single Judge
about the appointment of
respondent/petitioner to be in accordance
with the service rules prescribed for the
post. We, therefore, find force in the
contention of Mr. Pandey that learned Single
Judge fell in error in allowing the writ
petition relying upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Prem Singh (supra) and
Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra), particularly
after retrospective amendment of the
provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit
Rules, 1961 vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.

¶40

34. Law with regard to regularization is
well settled. The purpose of regularization
as also the exigency in which such benefit
can be granted has been extensively
considered by the Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs.
Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. It has been held
that such benefit can be granted only in
accordance with the rules framed for the
purpose.

¶41

35. The appointment on the post of Junior
Engineer under the recruitment rules is to
be made through the U.P. Public Service
Commission. The initial engagement of the
respondent/petitioner was not through the

¶42

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶43

7

¶44

Commission and the manner of initial
recruitment of respondent/petitioner has
neither been specifically pleaded in the
writ nor has been adverted to by the
respondents. It has, however, been stated in
para 11 of the counter affidavit that
initial engagement of respondent/petitioner
was not in accordance with the service
rules. This plea has not been specifically
denied in the counter affidavit. The initial
engagement of respondent/petitioner w.e.f.
1.1.1989 was on daily wage basis and he was
sanctioned regular scale of pay by the
competent authority on 3.9.1997, in
compliance of the orders passed in writ
petition no. 1436 (SS) of 1997 and he was
posted as Junior Engineer against the vacant
post vide order dated 18.9.1997. His
continuance thereafter till attaining the
age of superannuation remains undisputed.

¶45

37. From a perusal of the order of
regularization dated 31.12.2018, passed by
the competent authority, it remains
undisputed that the respondent/petitioner
was entitled to be regularized in accordance
with the provisions of the third amendment
rules notified on 20.12.2001. It has to be
seen in the facts of the case, as to whether
the petitioner is entitled to be regularized
from any date prior to 31.12.2018 for which
specific prayer is made in the writ
petition?

¶46

41. Rules for regularization were framed in
respect of adhoc appointments on the posts
falling with the purview of Public Service

¶47

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶48

8

¶49

Commission in 1979. These rules were amended
from time to time and the respondent
petitioner has relied upon the third
amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. The
cut off date was amended and substituted by
these rules. Amended rule 2 notified on
20.12.2001 provided that any person directly
appointed on adhoc basis on or before
30.6.1998 who possessed requisite
qualification at the time of appointment and
had completed three years service and was
working on 20.12.2001 would be entitled to
be considered for regular appointment
against permanent or temporary vacancy on
the basis of his record and suitability
before any regular appointment is made in
such vacancy in accordance with the relevant
service rules.

¶50

42. The fact that claim of
respondent/petitioner for regularization
under the notification dated 20.12.2001 was
covered is neither in doubt nor is disputed
in view of the order dated 31.12.2018 since
his initial engagement on adhoc basis was
from a date prior to 30.6.1998; he was
working on 20.12.2001; he possessed
requisite qualification for regular
appointment at the time of initial adhoc
appointment and had completed three years
continuous service.

¶51

43. The notification dated 20.12.2001 was
expected to be given effect to with
immediate effect and the consideration of
claim for regularization of
respondent/petitioner ought not to have been

¶52

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶53

9

¶54

deferred for so long particularly in view of
the express provision contained in the rule
itself. Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules
notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the
specific intent by the rule framing
authority for such consideration to be made
before any regular appointment is made in
accordance with the service rules. The
language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant
and is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶55

"2(iii). Any person who - has
completed or, as the case may be,
after he has completed three years
continuous service shall be

¶56

considered for regular appointment
in permanent or temporary vacancy as
may be available on the basis of his
record and suitability before any
regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the
relevant service rules or orders."

¶57

44. The fact that the above rule requires
consideration for regularization against
permanent or temporary vacancy, before any
regular appointment is made in accordance
with relevant service rule is of importance
and cannot be ignored. The rule making
authority was conscious that non
consideration of claim for regularization
notwithstanding the existence of rule for
such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc
employee, in the matter of determination of
seniority etc. and, therefore, made a
specific provision for such regularization
under the rules to be considered prior to

¶58

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶59

10

¶60

any regular appointment made in such vacancy
in accordance with the relevant service
rules. Denial of timely consideration in
accordance with the rules for regularization
may otherwise deny service and retiral
benefits to adhoc employees only because of
administrative lethargy on part of the
department concerned in processing such
claim.

¶61

45. No valid reasons have otherwise been
disclosed for non consideration of claim of
respondent/petitioner for regularization
after 20.12.2001, particularly when the
order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of
this Court for regularizing his services.
The only plea taken in the counter affidavit
to justify belated consideration for
regularization is that the State Government
directed such claim to be considered only
vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the
appellant to explain the delay in
consideration of claim for regularization is
noticed only to be rejected.

¶62

46. The regularization rules notified on
20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all
adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998
on posts falling within the purview of the
Public Service Commission which included the
department of minor irrigation as well and
there existed no specific need of any
further Administrative/Government order to
be issued for the rules of regularization to
be given effect to. The post of Junior
Engineer in the Department of Minor
Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the

¶63

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶64

11

¶65

notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance
of the direction contained in the government
order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and
at best reminded the authorities to act as
per the notification dated 20.12.2001.
Services of various other persons such as
Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh,
etc. were otherwise regularized much prior
to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done
in compliance of the court's order does not
inspire confidence as the direction of court
existed in favour of respondent/petitioner
to be considered for regularization from
1997 itself. The authorities cannot be
permitted to pick and choose in the matter
of consideration of case for regularization
under the orders of court. The authorities
of the State, therefore, are not justified
in denying consideration to the case of
respondent appellant for regularization soon
after issuance of notification dated
20.12.2001 and in any view before making any
regular appointment in accordance with the
relevant service rules by virtue of amended
rule 2 (iii).

¶66

47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules
of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the
action of appellant authorities in not
considering petitioner's claim for
regularization within a reasonable period
despite an order of the competent court
cannot be approved.

¶67

48. We are, therefore, of the view that the
claim of respondent/petitioner to be
regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of

¶68

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶69

12

¶70

the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997
or in any event prior to regular appointment
made in permanent or temporary vacancy in
accordance with relevant service rules is
liable to be considered by the Chief
Engineer concerned in light of our above
observations within a period of two months
from the date of presentation of a copy of
this order. The order of regularization
dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in
terms of the order to be passed by the Chief
Engineer. The authorities shall be at
liberty to determine the date on which
regular appointment on the post in the cadre
was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit
of regularization in any event will have to
be extended from a date prior to such
regular appointment. The appellants,
therefore, are commanded to extend all
service and retiral benefits, which are
found due and payable to the
respondent/petitioner within a further
period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant
special appeal, is therefore, disposed off
in the above terms. Parties to bear their
own costs."

¶71

16. It is thus evident that aforesaid aspect has
been considered in light of judgments rendered in
the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as Bhanu
Pratap Pandey (supra). The said judgment was not
interfered with in Special Leave to Appeal No.11915
of 2022. However, the question of law was kept
open.

¶72

17. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Kamrul Haq and others versus

¶73

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶74

13

¶75

State of U.P. and others,Special Appeal No. 56 of
2022and other connected matters has also
adjudicated upon the aspect in the following
manner:

¶76

"26. At the outset, it may be noticed that
it is not disputed by the parties that the
engagement of the present appellants was not
on ad hoc basis. It is also not disputed
between the parties that similarly situate
Junior Engineers working in the PWD as well
as in other Government Departments including
Minor Irrigation, were similarly placed and
there have been repeated orders passed by
the Court from time to time in their
respective cases wherein the issue of
regularization was considered and directions
were issued to the State to consider and
pass appropriate order relating to such
Junior Engineers.

¶77

27. It is also not disputed that the issue
raised by the present appellants was also
the subject matter of Writ-A No.3660 of 2021
(Raj Bahadur Pastor Vs. State of U.P. &
others) wherein relying upon the decision of
the Apex Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of
U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 as well as in the
case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Bhanu
Pratap Sharma, Special Appeal No.97 of 2021
decided on 09.06.2021 a learned Single Judge
held that the services rendered by the said
petitioners prior to his regularization was
also to be taken into account for

¶78

determining the period of qualifying service
for the purposes of payment of pensionary
and other benefits. This decision in Raj

¶79

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶80

14

¶81

Bahadur Pastor dated 09.06.2021 was made the
the subject matter of Special Appeal No.21
of 2022 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench by means
of its judgment dated 27.01.2022 held that
even though the petitioner of the said case
came to be regularized later but the
Division Bench held that the order of
regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand
amended and the date of regularization was
taken to be 20.12.2021 i.e. the date when
the 3rd amendment in the regularization
rules came into effect. A copy of the
judgment in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 has
been brought on record as annexure no.18
with the affidavit filed by the appellants
in support of the application for interim
relief.

¶82

28. In so far as the contention of the
learned Standing Counsel that the decision
of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) is not
applicable to the present appellants, nor
they can be given the benefit thereof, for
the reason that the appellants herein were
not appointed on ad hoc basis is fallacious
for the reason that the order of
regularization dated 06.09.2006 which has
been brought on record as annexure no.16,
clearly indicates that a conscious decision
was taken by the department extending the
benefit of the Rules of 1979 and treating
the appellants to be on ad hoc basis, which
reads as under:-

¶83

लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में काय र ्त िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर्चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की िरट यािचका सं० 36603/1998 राकेश कुमार

¶84

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶85

15

¶86

ित्रपाठी व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत िनणर्य िदनांक़ 30.11.04 यािचका सं० 6737/1999 हृदय नाथ चौबे एवं 107 अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत िनणर्य िद०07.03.2005 तथा िरट यािचका सं० 37582/98, राम िसह व 17 अन्य, बनाम उ० प्र० सरकार में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत िनणर्य िद० 25.04.2005 को संज्ञान में लेते हुए शासनादेश सं०-877/23-7-06-. 198 (कोटर्)/06 िदनांक 17 फरवरी 2006 द्वारा लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में काय र ्त दैिनक वेतन व वकर्चाजर् के 197 कमर्चािरयों के िविनयिमतीकरण की कायर्वाही उ० प्र० (लोक सेवा आयोग के क्षेत्रान्तगर्त पद पर) तदथर् िनयुिक्तयों का िविनयिमतीकरण िनयमावली 1979, यथा संशोिधत िनयमावली 2001 के िनयम-4 के अन्तगर्त तदथर् क्रािमक मानते हुए उक्त िनयमावली में िनिहत प्रािवधानों के अनुसार कायर्वाही िकये जाने का अनुमोदन जारी िकया गया है।

¶87

शासनादेश िद 17.02.06 में िनिहत िनदेर्शानुसार चयन सिमित का गठन कायार्लय ज्ञाप सं०- 1967 ईडी/5319 ईडी/06 िद० 07.03.06 के द्वारा िकया गया है। सिमित द्वारा क्षेत्रीय अिधकािरयों से िवभागों में काय र ्त िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर्चाजर् कमर्चािरयों के सेवा िववरण एवं अन्य मूल प्रमाणपत्र प्राप्त िकये गये थे। सिमित की संस्तुित के आधार पर उपरोक्त िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/ वकर्चाजर् कमर्चािरयों की ज्येष्ठता सूची जारी की गयी है।

¶88

सिमित की संस्तुितयों को स्वीकार करते हुए लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग में िवचाराधीन िडप्लोमाधारी दैिनक वेतन/वकर्चाजर् किमयों को अवर अिभयन्ता (यॉित्रक) के पद पर वेतनमान रू० 5000-150-8000 पर िविनयिमतीकरण िकये जाने के आदेशं िनम्न शतर् एवं प्रितबन्धों के अनुरूप एतदद्वारा जारी िकये जाते हैं।"

¶89

30. Thus, it would be seen that the
appellants herein were granted the benefit
and were treated as ad hoc employees as the
same is mentioned in the order of
regularization itself. Accordingly, once the
appellants had been regularized on

¶90

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶91

16

¶92

06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc
employees and in any case in view of the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
earlier petition which was filed by the
Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and
Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and
Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra
Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others
wherein directions have been issued by the
Court which were never set aside, hence it
was incumbent upon the respondents to have
complied with the same at the earliest and
even though the regularization was made in
the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the
benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the
Rules 1979.

¶93

31. Learned Standing Counsel could not
dispute the fact that in the regularization
order, the relevant part of which has been
reproduced hereinabove it did treat the
appellants as ad hoc employees, hence there
can be no reason for this Court to differ or
to take a different view other than the one
taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra), Special
Appeal No.21 of 2022 which admittedly has
been affirmed by the Apex Court.

¶94

32. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
learned Single Judge was not justified in
dismissing the writ petitions and this Court
is of the view that the appellants though
regularized in the year 2006, their
regularization order dated 06.09.2006 shall
stand amended in terms of the order to be

¶95

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶96

17

¶97

passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and treat
the case of the appellants to have been
regularized with effect from 20.12.2001 and
thereafter the Authorities shall be at
liberty to determine the date on which the
regular appointment on the post in the cadre
was made after 20.12.2001 since the benefit
of regularization will have to be extended
from a date prior to such regular
appointment. The State Authorities shall
also extend all service and retiral benefits
which are found due and payable to the
appellants and the entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of eight weeks.

¶98

33. With the aforesaid observations, the
instant special appeals are partly allowed.
Costs are made easy."

¶99

18. The said judgment has thereafter been upheld by
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (civil)
Diary No.25700 of 2024.

¶100

19. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances,
it is thus evident that the aspect of retrospective
regularization to be granted has already been
adjudicated upon by two Division Benches which have
been upheld uptill the Supreme Court.

¶101

20. In such circumstances, the mere pendency of
other special appeal before Division Bench of this
Court, in the considered opinion of this court,
would be immaterial.

¶102

21. The said aspect has also been considered
subsequently by Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo
versus Union of India reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC
3826 in the following manner:-

¶103

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶104

18

¶105

"10. Having given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced and the material on record,
we find that the appellants' long and
uninterrupted service, for periods extending well
beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely
by labelling their initial appointments as 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.

¶106

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.

¶107

13. The claim by the respondents that these were
not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of
the work performed by the appellants was
perennial and fundamental to the functioning of
the offices. The recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular
posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy
that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks
to private agencies after the appellants'
termination demonstrates the inherent need for

¶108

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶109

19

¶110

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.

¶111

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants'
services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary
and devoid of any justification. The termination
letters, issued without prior notice or
explanation, violated fundamental principles of
natural justice. It is a settled principle of law
that even contractual employees are entitled to a
fair hearing before any adverse action is taken
against them, particularly when their service
records are unblemished. In this case, the
appellants were given no opportunity to be heard,
nor were they provided any reasons for their
dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of
dedicated service.

¶112

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.

¶113

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

¶114

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶115

20

¶116

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 judgement of this
Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of
India & Ors.5, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed "temporary" but has
performed the same duties as performed by the
regular employee over a considerable period in
the capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgement have been
reproduced below:

¶117

"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

¶118

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶119

21

¶120

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).

¶121

7. The judgement 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."

¶122

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants' engagements and
the outsourcing decision taken after their
dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface
labels and consider the realities of employment:
continuous, long-term service, indispensable
duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that
light, refusing regularization simply because
their original terms did not explicitly state so,
or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.

¶123

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of

¶124

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶125

22

¶126

temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm
obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:

¶127

.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.

¶128

.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.

¶129

.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.

¶130

.Using Outsourcing as a Shield:

¶131

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶132

23

¶133

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.

¶134

.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.

¶135

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and
ensure appointments adhered to constitutional
principles, it is regrettable that its principles
are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This
judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal"
and "irregular" appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments,
who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had
served continuously for more than ten years,
should be considered for regularization as a one-
time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions
rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the
claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government

¶136

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶137

24

¶138

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.

¶139

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."

¶140

22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
aforesaid enunciation of law is squarely applicable
in the present facts and circumstances of the case
particularly since this Court is bound by Division
Bench judgments which have been upheld by the
Supreme Court.

¶141

WRIA No. 5960 of 2025

¶142

25

¶143

23. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned order
dated 30.4.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a
writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in
the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to amend the regularization order
of petitioner to give it effect in accordance with
directions issued by Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor(supra).
Appropriate orders shall be issued by the competent
authority within a period of six weeks from the
date a certified copy of this order is served upon
the concerned authority and consequential benefits
shall be accorded to petitioner within a period of
eight weeks thereafter.

¶144

24. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is
allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶145

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶146

November 21, 2025

¶147

Subodh/-

¶148

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. and 3 Others

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivansh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and Others

Dr. Pragya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 Others

Prashant Shrivastava and 470 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others