Laluram Nureti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11244

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2288 of 2026

¶6

1 - Laluram Nureti S/o Toyaram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Garpa, DistrictNarayanpur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Bhanu S/o Aghan Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Raikera, DistrictMahasamund, (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Deepak Kumar Diwan S/o Derha Ram Diwan Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 100, Tamora, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.)

¶9

4 - Gautam Ram Rangare S/o Babulal Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Bharda, District- Balod, (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Purushottam Yadav S/o Jaylal Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Torla, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.)

¶11

6 - Gangaram S/o Bhorik Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 313 Ward No. 18 Kheda, District- Bemetara, (C.G.)

¶12

7 - Ishwar Singh Netam S/o Sonuram Netam Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 226 Ward No. 15 Manjhipara, Dahikonga, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶13

8 - Badrooram Chouhan S/o Nirmal Ram Chouhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Kardega Makribandha, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶14

9 - Sukai Bai D/o Dashmat Pandey Aged About 56 Years R/o Mohalai Mungapadar, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶15

2

¶16

10 - Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sumidharam Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 22 Jurugum, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶17

11 - Santosh Kumar S/o Ramdayal Aged About 59 Years R/o Bharar Jamgaon, P.S.Patan, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶18

12 - Shivkumar Patel S/o Daulat Ram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Raitum, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶19

13 - Jagatram S/o Buluram Aged About 47 Years R/o Bataikela, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶20

14 - Narmada Prasad Sarthi S/o Dauram Aged About 57 Years R/o 111 Mahaveer Ward, Tiwari Para, Kharod, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶21

15 - Girdhari Singh S/o Hajroo Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Damkodi Tola, Devgai, Aragarhi Camp, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶22

16 - Tikam Bharthi Goswami S/o Brijlal Bharthi Goswami Aged About 54 Years R/o 177 Ward No. 10 Ghotwani, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶23

17 - Chhotulal Yadav S/o Firangi Lal Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Godhna, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶24

18 - Mahettar Lal S/o Bulthu Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Misda, District- JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶25

19 - Nira Bai Sahu W/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Thana Para, Chhote Dongar, District- Narayanpur (C.G.)

¶26

20 - Bala Prasad S/o Kamlu Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Gadhpara, Chhote Dongar, District- Narayanpur (C.G.)

¶27

21 - Jhadiram Kosle S/o Shyam Kosle Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 6 VillageKunwra, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶28

22 - Dile Singh S/o Milap Singh Gond Aged About 55 Years R/o Mahkapara, Rahoud, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶29

3

¶30

23 - Bhushan Kumar Suryawanshi S/o Kheduram Suryawanshi Aged About 57 Years R/o Amsena, P.S.- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶31

24 - Ramadhar Yadav S/o Sonshri Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 31 Ward No. 3, Village- Kukera, P.S.-Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶32

25 - Santram Sahu S/o Itwari Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk Ward No. 14, Khorpa, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶33

26 - Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Brijlal Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 418 Tila, Semra, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶34

27 - Loknath Sethiya S/o Dayaram Sethiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Bazar Para, Nangur, District- Bastar (C.G.)

¶35

28 - Sharvan Thakur S/o Hari Singh Thakur Aged About 49 Years R/o 72 Pujari Para, Ulnar, District- Bastar (C.G.)

¶36

29 - Bhagwat Prasad Yadav S/o Late Kejuram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Nilja, Saragaon, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶37

30 - Dular Singh Sahu S/o Ludgu Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶38

31 - Virendra Singh Thakur S/o Asman Thakur Aged About 45 Years R/o Turangur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)

¶39

32 - Trilochan Nagesh S/o Moti Singh Nagesh Aged About 54 Years R/o Patel Para, Chapapadar, District- Bastar (C.G.)

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶43

2 - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Atal Nagar Raipur, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶44

4

¶45

3 - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Finance Department, Atal Nagar Raipur, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

¶46

4 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

¶47

5 - The Director Ayurved, Yog And Natural Medicine, Yunani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Atal Nagar, Raipur, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

¶48

... Respondents

¶49

For Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate

¶50

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶51

ORDER ON BOARD

¶52

09/03/2026

¶53

Petitioners has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶54

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to take policy decision for conversion of part time sweeper like petitioners as full time sweeper, within stipulated time.

¶55

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation filed by the petitioners through their Union namely Chhattisgarh Ayush Safai Karamchari Kalyan Sangh.

¶56

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that according to respondent,

¶58

the order of regularization of petitioners could not be passed because of extra financial burden upon the State. He submits that the matter is pending before the Finance Department for financial approval with regard to the payment of salary to be paid to employees like petitioners after their regularization. He contended that the petitioners have submitted

¶59

5

¶60

representation dated 08.09.2025 through their union before the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur with a prayer for regularizing their services and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by their union,expeditiously within specified time frame.

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation dated 08.09.2025 submitted by the petitioners, he is having no objection to the limited prayer.

¶62

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶63

The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years and observed thus:-

¶64

“ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases

¶65

6

¶66

above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

¶67

After the decision in case of Umadevi (Supra), State Government has issued circular addressing to all the stakeholders of different departments of the State of Chhattisgarh on 05.03.2008 with the subject that regularization of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage employee or temporary employee. In the aforementioned notification, it is mentioned that the procedure for regularization of services of Class III and Class IV employees working as daily-wage or temporary employees.

¶68

Paragraph 2 of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference:-

¶69

“ 2. उपरो�क्त मा�नन�य उ्ሴ तमा न्य�य�लय के� निन्ቓ�य के� परिरोቚኔ�ቌኚय मा� रो�ज्य शा�सन ቛኋ�रो� सहा�न�भू नितप ्ብ�के नि्ብचा�रो केरो दै$निनके ्ብ�तन भू�गी�/तदै्ቕ� रूप स� निनय�क्त केमा�चा�रिरोय( के) निनयमिमानितकेरो्ቓ के) ቚኔनि+य� निनम्न�न�स�रो निन቗ኋ��रिरोत के) जा�त� हा$ :-

¶70

(i) ्ቤ ሹኌक्त, रिरोक्त/स ् �के2 त निनयमिमात पदै के� नि्ብरु्ቍ पदै्ቝ निकेय� गीय� हा� औरो नि्ብभू�गी�य भूरोत� निनयमा( मा� निन቗ኋ��रिरोत शा$्ቌणि्ቓके ए्ብ: अन्य य�ग्यत�ए: रोखत� हा� त� हा� निनयमिमात केरोन� य�ग्य हा$। (ii) दै$निनके ्ብ�तन परो, तदै्ቕ� रूप स� अ्ቕ्ብ � केल�क्टरो दैरो परो (दै$निनके ्ብ�तन परो) जाब निनय�ሹኌक्त हुई तब स�अब तके उस पदै के) आ्ብश्यकेत� रोहा� हा$ औरो आगी� भू� उस पदै के) आ्ብश्यकेत� हा� त� स:ब:मि቗ኋत पदै के� नि्ብरु्ቍ ऐस� ्ቤ ሹኌक्त के� पदै्ቝ मा�नत� हुए नि्ብचा�रो निकेय� जा� सके�गी�।

¶71

(iii) स:ब:मि቗ኋत ्ቤ ሹኌक्त न� दै$निनके ्ብ�तन भू�गी� (चा�हा� केल�क्टरो दैरो परो) के� रूप मा� अ्ቕ्ብ � तदै्ቕ� रूप मा� दिदैन�:के 31-12-1997 तके लगी�त�रो उस� पदै परो य� समाके्ቌ पदै परो के�य� निकेय� हा� के� स:ब:቗ኋ मा� लगी�त�रो के�य� केरोन� (स�्ብ� दै�न�) तब हा� मा�न� जा�य�गी� यदिदै ቚኔत्य�के ्ብ्ቧ � मा� के�ल स�्ብ� ቜኔ�के एके मा�हा स� अमि቗ኋके के) न हा�। लगी�त�रो स�्ብ� के� लिलय� हाड़त�ल के) अ्ብमि቗ኋ स�्ብ� मा� ቜኔ�के नहाL मा�न� जा�य�गी� ।

¶72

7

¶73

(iv) दिदैन�:के 31-12-1997 तके दै$निनके ्ብ�तन परो अ्ቕ्ብ � तदै्ቕ� निनय�क्त ए्ብ: के�य�रोत त2त�य ए्ብ: चात�्ቕ� ቦኔ�्ቓ� केमा�चा�रिरोय( के� निनयमिमानितकेरो्ቓ निकेय� जा�य ।

¶74

(v) ्ቤ ሹኌक्त यदिदै के�य�भू�रिरोत पदै( के� नि्ብरु्ቍ के�य�रोत हा$ त� के�य�भू�रिरोत पदै परो हा� निनयमिमात निकेय� जा�ए निनयमिमात पदै के� नि्ብरु्ቍ के�य�रोत हा� त� निनयमिमात पदै परो हा� निनयमिमात निकेय� जा�ए।

¶75

(vi) छቈኍ�सगीढ़ ल�के स�्ብ� (अन�स लिचात जा�नितय(, अन�स लिचात जानजा�नितय(, औरो अन्य निपछड़� ्ብगीQ के� लिलय� आरो्ቌ्ቓ ) अमि቗ኋनिनयमा, 1994 के� प�लन निकेय� जा�्ብ� अ्ቕ��तR दै$निनके ्ብ�तन भू�गी�/तदै्ቕ� रूप मा� के�य�रोत ्ቤ ሹኌक्त जिजास ्ብ गी� स� स:ब:मि቗ኋत हा$ रो�स्टरो के� अन�स�रो उस� निबन्दु के� समा्ቌ उसके� निनयमिमानितकेरो्ቓ निकेय� जा�य� ए्ብ: रो�स्टरो मा� अन�स लिचात जा�नित, अन�स लिचात जानजा�नित, अन्य निपछड़� ्ብगी� के� निबन्दु यदिदै उम्मा�दै्ብ�रो के� अभू�्ብ मा� रिरोक्त रोहात� हाU त� भूनि्ብष्य मा� हा�न� ्ብ�ल� रिरोሹኌक्तय( के) प ቔኌतX आरोणि्ቌत निबन्दुओं के� लिलय� ቚኔ�्ቕमिमाकेत� के� आ቗ኋ�रो परो ब$केल�गी के) प ቔኌतX के) तरोहा के) जा�य�गी�।

¶76

(vii) निनयमिमानितकेरो्ቓ स ् �के2 त ए्ብ रिरोक्त पदै परो हा� निकेय� जा�एगी� । इस हा: त�� जिजान नि्ብभू�गी( मा आ्ብश्यके हा� ्ብहा�� स�: ख्य: तरो पदै निन቞ኌमा� त निकेयX जा�य� । यदिदै� पदै हा� केलक्टरो दैरो परो स� ् �के2 त हा� त� स ् �के2 त पदै( (दैनिनके ्ብ$ तन परो� ) के� निनयमिमात ्ብ तनमा�न मा� परिरो्ብቔኌत� त X (स2जिजात) केरोन� हा�गी�।

¶77

(viii) परिरोप्ቔ जा�रो� हा�न� के� ब�दै शा�सके)य नि्ብभू�गी( ቛኋ�रो� निनयमिमानितकेरो्ቓ के� आदै�शा जिजास दिदैन जा�रो� निकेय� जा�य�गी� उस� दिदैन�:के स� हा� निनयमिमात केमा�चा�रो� मा�न� जा�्ብ�गी�। प ्ብ� के� निकेस� दिदैन�:के स� नहाL। पदै+मा स चा� मा� इनके� न�मा आपस� ्ብरिरो्቗त� अन�स�रो एनब्ल�के सबस� न�चा� रोख� जा�य�गी�।

¶78

(ix) उपरो�क्त�न�स�रो निनयमिमात रूप स� निनय�ሹኌक्त दै` गीई ्ቤ ሹኌक्तय( के) आपस� ्ብ रिरो्቗त� दै$निनके ्ብ�तन भू�गी केमा�चा�रो�/केल�क्टरो दैरो परो, अ्ቕ्ብ � तदै्ቕ� रूप स� के�य�भू�रो ्ቇहा्ቓ के� दिदैन�:के के� आ቗ኋ�रो प निन቗ኋ��रिरोत के) जा�्ብ�गी� । ्ብरिरो्቗त�+मा निन቗ኋ��रिरोत केरोत� समाय यदिदै एके स� अमि቗ኋके ्ቤ ሹኌक्त एके दिदैन�:के मा� निनय�क्त निकेय� गीय� हा( त� उनमा� स� जा� आय� मा� अमि቗ኋके हा�गी� उस� ्ብरिरो्቗ मा�न� जा�एगी�.”

¶79

Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India

¶80

& Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 while considering the

¶81

claim of part-time/ad hoc employees appointed as Safaiwale, Khalasi who

¶82

earlier engaged in CWC Establishment at Faridabad had observed thus:-

¶83

“ 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

¶84

8

¶85

the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶86

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.

¶87

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 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.

¶88

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:

¶89

\• 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.

¶90

• 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.

¶91

9

¶92

• 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.

¶93

\• 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.

¶94

• 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.

¶95

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶96

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

¶97

10

¶98

the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶99

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶100

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.”

¶101

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.

¶102

Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring its earlier decisions on the very issue, has concluded thus:-

¶103

“13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India¹⁰ , this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.

¶104

11

¶105

13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam¹¹ , and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India¹² , this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.

¶106

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.¹³ , this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.

¶107

13.9. The State must remain conscious that parttime employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

¶108

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

¶109

12

¶110

withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶111

FINAL CONCLUSION:

¶112

In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:

¶113

I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization.

¶114

II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶115

III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny.

¶116

IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.

¶117

V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment .

¶118

10.Following the decision in the case of Jaggo (Supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 while considering the claim of regularization of the appellants therein had observed thus:-

¶119

“ 12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer's

¶120

13

¶121

municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or projectbased. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long-serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent.

¶122

13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work, ” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer's direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements.

¶123

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:

¶124

“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

¶125

14

¶126

economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶127

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:

¶128

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled 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.

¶129

• 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.

¶130

• 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.

¶131

• 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.

¶132

• 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.”

¶133

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay.

¶134

15

¶135

Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness : the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

¶136

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

¶137

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:

¶138

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.

¶139

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.

¶140

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.

¶141

16

¶142

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 longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”

¶143

11.In the above facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and further considering that the petitioners have submitted representation dated 08.09.2025 before the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur to consider and take decision on the representation dated 08.09.2025 as submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶144

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands

¶145

disposed of .

¶146

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶147

Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY SHUBHAM
DEY
Dey

Laluram Nureti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Laluram Nureti v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Dr. Girish Kumar Singh Vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya

Shrawan Kumar Kathale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Lal Azaad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S.D. Goyal Vs Union of India

Smt. Mita Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjalina Nand Vs State of Chhattisgarh