Page 1 of 17

Serial No. 01

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 135 of 2025

Date of Decision :30.06.2026

All NEHU Workers’ Union (ANWU)

Represented by the President of the Union

Shri Napoleon S. Mawphniang

S/o (L) B.W. Roy Pamshong,

R/o Syadheh, P.O. Umsning,

Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya-793105 … Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. North Eastern Hill University (NEHU),

Represented by the Registrar of the University,

Mawkynroh, Umshing, East Khasi Hills District,

Shillong-793022.

2. The Registrar,

North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Campus,

Shillong-793022. …. Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv. with

Ms. E. Blah, Adv.

2026:MLHC:642

Page 2 of 17

____________________________________________________________

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No

in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The writ petitioner an incorporated body, registered under the

Trade Union Act, 1926 is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition

praying for directions to regularize/absorb the workers who are the members

of the Union serving for more than 10 years, apart from other consequential

reliefs.

2. Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner Union has been actively espousing the cause of its members

serving under the respondents and that the said members have put in long

years of uninterrupted services in their respective posts and had been serving

for decades. The appointments he submits were not illegal, but at the most

irregular and has relied upon the principles laid down in the case of Umadevi

(2006) 4 SCC 1, to contend that long serving employees in irregular

appointments who fulfill essential, sanctioned functions, are entitled to

consideration for regularization. It is further submitted that vide an RTI

query, it has been confirmed that 201 Union members, occupy posts within

the 401 sanctioned Group-C positions, which would satisfy the threshold of 2026:MLHC:642

Page 3 of 17

the Umadevi’s case and that their roles exist within the University’s

established cadre.

3. The learned counsel has cited the case of Jaggo vs. Union of

India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, in support of his arguments and

has submitted that by the said judgment it has been held that performing

essential duties on a continuous basis, creates a substantive reality of

employment and that labelling workers as casual for 20 years while they

maintain critical infrastructure in the University, is a legal fiction. The

members of the Union he submits, who were engaged by the Assistant

Registrar, are on the official pay roll and that statutory deductions of

(EPF/ESI) are made, and as such he contends this constitutes irregular, but

not illegal appointment, making them eligible for regularization. The learned

counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar

& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 9 SCC 327, which he submits has

clearly distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments. Learned

counsel has also referred to the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of

U.P. & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine 1735, in support of his case. With regard to

the submissions of the counsel for the respondents of the dismissal of prior

cases involving casual workers, the learned counsel submits that the earlier

litigants were pro-rata workers, a distinct class whose employment

conditions deferred fundamentally from the members of the petitioner 2026:MLHC:642

Page 4 of 17

Union. To illustrate this point, it has been submitted that there is a

fundamental disparity in the salary structures, wherein pro-rata workers were

paid on a pay scale basis under a general mode regardless of their specific

scales, whereas the members of the Union were paid according to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employments’ minimum

wage standards, and their compensation classified by category such as,

skilled, semi-skilled and un-skilled and were paid according to the specific

designation of the post they hold.

4. In conclusion, it has been submitted that the conduct of the

respondents reveals an attitude of total indifference towards the welfare of

its backbone workforce, and there are a large number of vacant sanctioned

posts both at the Group-B and Group-C levels, against which the members

of the Union can be given due consideration for regularisation.

5. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has

submitted that the members of the petitioner Union are casual workers and

were not appointed against sanctioned posts. The said appointments it is

submitted, were made without following the regular procedure of

recruitment, or selection, a fact which is not controverted by the writ

petitioners. Learned counsel submits that a similar matter had come up for

consideration before this Court in WP(C) No. (SH) 113 of 2011 (Shri

Tanbor Langbang & Ors. vs. NEHU & Ors.), wherein this Court by 2026:MLHC:642

Page 5 of 17

Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2013, dismissed the writ petition by

holding that the petitioners therein, had been engaged as casual workers

without following the procedure prescribed under the constitutional Scheme

and also not against any sanctioned posts. An appeal from the said Judgment

though filed he submits, was not pursued which has resulted in its finality,

and the same cannot be reopened. The learned counsel on the question of

binding precedents, has placed the decisions in the cases of Official

Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1 and the Judgment of

Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Himachal & Ors. 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 792. On the decision cited by the petitioner i.e. Jaggo vs. Union

of India & Ors. (supra), it has been submitted that the said judgment has not

diluted or deviated from the ratio laid down in Umadevi’s case rather the

same has reiterated what has been held in Umadevi’s case, with regard to

illegal and irregular appointments. He therefore, submits that the writ

petitioners being bound by the earlier orders of this Court, and having been

appointed irregularly as casual workers and that too not against sanctioned

posts, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The simple issue put up

by the petitioner Union, is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to

regularize/absorb the casual workers who are members of the petitioner

Union who have been serving in the University for periods of over 10 years 2026:MLHC:642

Page 6 of 17

to 20 years. To buttress this demand, the writ petitioner Union has sought to

link the same to the number of vacant Group-B and Group-C sanctioned

posts available in the University, the information which has been obtained

through an RTI query dated 18.10.2024, and in this context, heavy reliance

has been placed in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).

7. First, it is important to note that this Court in the Judgment of

Shri Tanbor Langbang & Ors. vs. NEHU & Ors. (supra) had held at Para-

5, as follows: -

“5. From the pleaded case of the petitioners in the writ

petition, nature of their engagements and the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the respondents, it is clear that the

petitioners have been engaged as casual employees or daily

wage basis for a certain period without following the

procedure prescribed under the Constitutional Scheme of

public appointment. Over and above, the petitioners were not

appointed/engaged in a sanctioned post but they were

engaged in daily wage basis without following the required

procedure for public employment as their services were

needed to meet the needs of the Institution. The services of the

petitioners come to an end when it is discontinued. It is fairly

settled that the recruit process of recruitment or employment

has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a

particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up

pf those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or

based on patronage or other considerations. Regular

appointment must be the rule. But in this instant case, there

are no regular posts or regular vacancies for regular

appointment of the petitioners and therefore, there is no

question of filling up of regular vacancies or regularizations

of the casual services of the petitioners. However, this Court

in the following paras will discuss as to whether the case of

the petitioners are covered by Para-53 of the Umadevi's case

(Supra).”

2026:MLHC:642

Page 7 of 17

8. In the above quoted case, the writ petitioners who had preferred

the writ petition against the respondent NEHU were engaged/appointed as

casual workers on daily wage/fixed salary basis on being appointed by the

Assistant Registrar. Though an attempt has been made by the counsel for the

petitioner to distinguish the present case from the earlier writ petition, the

basic facts, nature of engagement being identical, this contention is not

accepted. Further, a perusal of the above quoted paragraph, would show that

as in the instant case, the appointments were not against sanctioned posts,

nor was any procedure of selection adopted.

9. Though as observed above, the petitioners would be bound by

the earlier judgments of this Court and the position of settled law as it

pertained then, however, certain changes have since occurred in the legal

landscape in the matter of regularization of temporary employees, that

requires a revisitation of their claims. These changes are notable in the cases

of Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) and Dharam

Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), apart from the landmark case

of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). By applying the ratio of the

judgments, where continuous service of perennial nature performed by an

employee and where the appointment is not illegal, but at the most irregular,

be given consideration, similarly the case of the petitioners cannot be shut

down merely because they have not come through a selection process; that 2026:MLHC:642

Page 8 of 17

the engagement is termed temporary; and that the said appointment was not

made against sanctioned posts. In this context, relevant paragraphs from the

aforementioned judgments are reproduced hereinbelow: -

i) Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to

curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure

appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is

regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or

misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving

employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between

“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held

that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged

in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for

more than ten years, should be considered for regularization

as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the

judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta

to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in

cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely

lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government

departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to

argue that no vested right to regularization exists for

temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit

acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.

This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and

purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who

have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is

imperative for government departments to lead by example in

providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on

a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their

roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only

contravenes international labour standards but also exposes

the organization to legal challenges and undermines

employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices,

government institutions can reduce the burden of

unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the 2026:MLHC:642

Page 9 of 17

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.”

ii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 9 SCC

327

“7.The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] 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. Para

53 of Umadevi (3) case is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42)

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where

irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained

in S.V. Narayanappa [State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa,

1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [R.N.

Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N.

Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC

507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 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 the

courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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

abovereferred 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 regularise 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 the 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 2026:MLHC:642

Page 10 of 17

from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already

made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this

judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the

constitutional requirement and regularising or making

permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional

scheme.”

(emphasis in original)

8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit

in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service

conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from

temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the

substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service

akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of

equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.”

iii) Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2025 SCC

OnLine 1735

“10. It must be noted that the premise of “no vacancy” is, in

any event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An RTI

response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent

No. 2 indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore,

I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the

appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-

IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the

establishment. That application also set out the names of

similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier

within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A.

The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison

with those who received regularisation materially undermine

the High Court's conclusion that no vacancy existed and

reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed.

Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while

continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable

tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation

of equity.”

11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed

by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the

appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the

challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the 2026:MLHC:642

Page 11 of 17

constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge

to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the

employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of

continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other

hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal

appointments and irregular engagements and does not

endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the

work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to

put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court

in Jaggo v. Union of India

4

and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,

Ghaziabad

5

have emphatically cautioned

that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify

exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of

outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where

identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The

principles articulated therein apply with full force to the

present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have

been reproduced hereunder:

“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 2026:MLHC:642

Page 12 of 17

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 India

3

in

the following paragraphs:

“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.

………

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 2026:MLHC:642

Page 13 of 17

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.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are

frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in

the present case. This practice undermines the

principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a

state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or

duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees

often find themselves excluded from opportunities for

skill development, promotions, or incremental pay

raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a

systemic disparity between them and their regular

counterparts, despite their contributions being equally

significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions

increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by

temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of

exploited workers with another. This practice not only

perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a

deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer

regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary

employees are often denied fundamental benefits such

as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid

leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack

of social security subjects them and their families to

undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,

retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”

10. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, it is noted that by

an RTI query, it has come to light that as on 18.10.2024 (Annexure-3), there

are a total number of 24 vacant posts in Group-B service and 185 posts in 2026:MLHC:642

Page 14 of 17

Group-C. The reply further states that the total number of sanctioned posts

available in Group-B are 122 and 401 in Group-C, out of which the current

number of regular staff in Group-B are 63, and 183 in Group-C. Though it

is noted for 14 posts in Group-B and 140 posts in Group-C, an advertisement

had been floated on 03.11.2023 to fill up these posts, however, it has been

stated on affidavit that the said advertisement, has since been cancelled or

withdrawn. The fact that emerges therefore, is that there are a sizeable

number of vacant sanctioned posts that are available in the University

against which regular appointment can be afforded.

11. This Court is alive to the fact that public employment should be

through an advertisement, fair competition and selection, consistent with

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but however, in reality such as in the

instant case, there are workers who have served for decades under temporary

arrangements and continuing for long years without ever entering sanctioned

rolls. Opposed to this, is the common unemployed aspirant who possesses

merit but would find the posts unavailable and already filled up, without a

recruitment exercise ever being conducted, due to the accommodation of

temporary employees who have entered service de hors a selection process.

Thus, the question that always arises before the Courts is to how to balance

the equities, where consideration for regularization would be in order for

deserving cases of long continuous temporary employment, against the set 2026:MLHC:642

Page 15 of 17

doctrine of equality of opportunity, which cannot also be ignored or

overlooked.

12. It is also understood that there is a constant friction between

constitutional ideals and administrative realities, where urgent necessity for

staff in view of procedural delays or financial considerations, calls for

appointments to be made on a temporary basis without any proper selection

process, whereas, public employment should ideally be through proper

selection and competition governed by statutory rules and due process. The

Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi (supra), reasserted Constitutional

Principles over administrative convenience and held that regularization of

illegal or irregular appointments, cannot be permitted to defeat the guarantee

of equality of opportunity under the Article 16, while at the same time

acknowledged the hardships faced by long serving temporary employees.

This Judgment, while allowing a onetime regularization measure for

employees who had served over 10 years against sanctioned posts, and

whose appointment were not illegal thus, restored discipline and fairness in

public employment as per Article 16. The Judgment which can be said to be

a landmark watershed judgment, established certain principles from which

subsequent service jurisprudence has evolved and Courts have applied these

principles. Judgements which have been rendered post Umadevi, have

reaffirmed that illegal appointments cannot be regularized and that equality 2026:MLHC:642

Page 16 of 17

of opportunity is the yardstick, but however, Courts have also to examine

cases based on their individual facts and circumstances. Thus, in several

judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affixed administrative

accountability where temporary engagements have been resorted to, though

permanent engagement was necessary.

13. In the instant case, the fact that cannot be ignored is that most of

the members of the Union have put in long years of continuous service

ranging from 10 to 30 years. By applying the law as discussed above, this

Court is of the considered view that, a blanket denial for consideration of

their cases would be unjustified. Accordingly, it is directed that the

Respondent University, conduct a review of its sanctioned strength and

existing vacancies in the Group B and C posts, against which the eligible

members of the petitioner Union can be considered for regularization subject

to fulfillment of qualification criteria as per prevalent rules and norms. The

exercise considering its nature and magnitude, shall be conducted by a duly

constituted Committee to be chaired by an officer to be nominated by the

Executive Council, not below the rank of Registrar and shall also comprise

Senior members from the Finance and Administrative branches of the

University. The entire exercise should be completed preferably within a

period of 6(six) months from today. It is further provided that until the said

exercise is completed, there shall be no displacement of the members of the 2026:MLHC:642

Page 17 of 17

Union who are employed in the temporary posts in question, as detailed in

the Chart appended to the writ petition.

14. The writ petition in terms of the directions made hereinabove is

closed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya

30.06.2026

“V. Lyndem- AR-PS” 2026:MLHC:642