IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

209 (7 cases) CWP-20096-2021

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

ARVIND RANA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents

And

Sr.

No.

Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

2. CWP-11021-2023 Prabhat Kiran and

Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

3. CWP-22687-2023 Anchal Garg and

Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

4. CWP-2425-2023 Surinder Kumar and

Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

5. CWP-3561-2022 Anil Kumar Vashist

and Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

6. CWP-3812-2022 Ujagar Singh and

Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

7. CWP-8485-2023 Inderjit Kaur and

Ors.

Union of India and Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the petitioners

(in CWP No.20096 of 2021 and CWP No.3812 of 2022)

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners

(in CWP No.3561 of 2022)

Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate for petitioner No.69

(in CWP-20096-2021)

Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for petitioners

(in CWP-8485-2023)

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. A.S. Rawaley, Advocate for the petitioners

(in CWP-11021-2023)

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -2-

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP Nos.2425 and 22687 of 2023)

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India

(through video conferencing) with

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel

(through video conferencing)

for Union of India-respondents No.1 & 2

(in CWP No.2425 of 2023) and with

Mr. Himanshu Malik, Senior Panel Counsel

for Union of India-respondent (in CWP No.11021 of 2023)

Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel

for Union of India-respondent (in CWP No.20096 of 2021,

CWP No.3561 of 2022 and CWP No.3812 of 2022)

Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate for

Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel

for the respondent-Union of India

(in CWP No.22687 of 2023)

Mr. Lokesh Chander Aggarwal, Advocate

for U.T., Chandigarh (in CWP-8485-2023)

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel with

Mr. Himanshu Arora, Additional Standing Counsel

with Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and

Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,

with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this

common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are

borrowed from CWP-20096-2021.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order

dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-45) whereby respondent has rejected their

claim for regularization of service. They are further seeking direction to

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -3-

respondent to integrate services of the petitioners rendered under Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan (for short ‘SSA’) into the regular cadre of the Education

Department, U.T. Chandigarh.

3. The Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of India in 2004 visualized SSA as comprehensive and

integrated programme to attain universal elementary education in the

country. The said programme was launched in partnership with the State

Governments and Local Self Governments. As per approved programme,

States and U.T. were supposed to make appointment of additional

teachers to comply with pupil teacher ratio prescribed under Right to

Education Act (in short ‘RTE’). It was provided that new teachers

would be appointed for opening new schools and additional teachers for

existing schools. The maximum number of upper primary teachers would

depend on the strength of upper primary sections. There would be

minimum two teachers for new primary school and three teachers for

upper primary schools. The salary of additional teachers will normally be

allowed under SSA. States have their own norms of recruitment of

teachers and payment of salary to new recruits. The states will be free to

follow their own norms as long as these are consistent with the norms

prescribed by National Talent Search Examination (NTSE). At least 50%

new teachers should be women. Grant would be given to Government

Schools as well as Government-Aided School, Cantonment, Municipal

Corporation Schools and aided madrasas. In case of schools other than

Government Schools, additional conditions including condition of salary

shall be complied with. Salary of teachers and their service condition

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -4-

would be similar to Government School Teachers. Financial assistance

was contemplated as 85:15 during 9

th

Five Year Plan, 75:25 during 10

th

Five Year Plan and 50:50 sharing thereafter between the Government of

India and State Government. It is apt to notice here that as per reply of

Union of India (for short ‘UOI’), in case of U.T. without Legislature,

100% funds would be provided by UOI.

4. The matter relates to Teachers of Union Territory,

Chandigarh recruited under SSA Programme. As per page 104 of the

paper-book contents of which are not disputed by respondent, 1375 posts

of teachers were sanctioned in various meetings of Project Approval

Board in MHRD New Delhi for U.T. Chandigarh.

5. Executive Committee of National Mission for SSA in its

meeting held on 05.12.2013 amended norms for various activities under

said programme. The revised norms with respect to additional teachers

read as:-

“8

Additional

teachers

(a) Additional teachers will

be provided as per the RTE

norms to all Government

and Local Body schools;

however SSA assistance will

not be available for filling

up State sector vacancies

that have arisen on account

of attrition and retirement

vacancies.

(b) The practice of

recruiting 50% female

teachers under SSA will

continue.

The following

points are

inserted:

h) Support for

additional

teachers can be

availed by a

State/ UT

under SSA only

after teacher

vacancies in

the State sector

have been

filled first.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -5-

(c) The States shall

rationalize the deployment

of existing teachers to

ensure that there is no

urban-rural imbalance in

teacher deployment.

(d) The States shall maintain

the prescribed PTR for each

School

(e) Vacancy of teachers in a

school shall not exceed 10%

of the total sanctioned

strength

(f) States shall appoint

teachers with minimum

qualifications as notified by

NCTE under section 23 of

RTE Act.

(g) In case the State does not

have trained persons in

adequate numbers, it will

seek relaxation from the

Central Government under

the relevant provisions of the

RTE Act. While seeking such

relaxation the State shall

make a commitment with a

detailed time bound

programme for training of

untrained teachers within

the time frame prescribed

under the RTE Act.

i) The States

should

maintain

unified

teaching

cadres and no

separate "S.SA

cadre' IS

permissible, as

all teachers are

ultimately to be

borne on the

State

Government.”

6. The U.T. Administration through different letters requested

Government of India to create additional posts of teachers to regularize

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -6-

teachers appointed under SSA. Teachers under SSA were appointed

through proper channel. There was advertisement followed by written

test and all other formalities which are followed in case of regular

appointments. Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Development, Department of School Education & Literacy vide

communication dated 27.03.2014 informed the U.T. Administration that

pursuant to their letter dated 08.02.2013 and 07.02.2014, Government has

approved creation of 1130 posts in Education Department, U.T.

Administration of Chandigarh. In the said letter, it was categorically

pointed out that administration may continue the present practice of

engaging 647 Masters and 728 Primary Teachers on contract basis under

SSA. Letter dated 27.03.2014 reads as-

“F.No.2-2/2011-UT.I

Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Department of School Education & Literacy

UT.I Section

*****

B-Wing, Ground Floor, Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi, the 27

th

March, 2014

To

The Director,

Public Instructions(S)

Chandigarh Administration

Sector-9, Chandigarh

Subject: Creation of posts in Education

Department, UT Administration of

Chandigarh

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter no.DPI-UT-AI-

5(2)04-Vol.II/182-183 dated 08

th

February, 2013

and subsequent correspondence resting with letter

dated 07.02.2014 on the subject mentioned above

and to convey the approval of the Government of

India for the creation of following 1130 posts in

Education Department, UT Administration of

Chandigarh.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -7-

S.

No.

Name of the post Pay Band

+

Grade

Pay

(Rs.)

Number of

posts

sanctioned

Teaching posts

1. Master 10300-

34800 GP

5000

683

2. Master cadre

(language)

10300-

34800 GP

5000

3. JBT

(Primary Teacher)

10300-

34800 GP

5000

342

4. NTT 10300-

34800 GP

5000

83

Total 1108

Administrative Posts

5. Director

(School

Education)

15600-

39100 GP

7600

1

6. Dy. Director

(School

Education)

15600-

39100 GP

6600

1

7. Dy. Director

(Admn.)

15600-

39100 GP

6600

1

8. Dy. Controller

(F&A)

15600-

39100 GP

6600

1

9. Asstt. Controller

(F&A)

15600-

39100 GP

5400

1

10. Section Officer 10300-

34800 GP

5000

1

11. Sr. Assistant 10300-

34800 GP

4400

8

12. Clerk 10300-

34800 GP

200

8

Total 22

2. UT Administration of Chandigarh may

continue the present practice of engaging Master

(647 nos.) and Primary Teachers (728 nos.) on

contract basis under SSA.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -8-

2. This issues with the approval of the Ministry

of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their

ID No.35089/E.Coord.I/2014 dated 27

th

March,

2014.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

27/3/2014

(Lakhmi Chand Mehra)

Under Secretary to Government of India

”

7. The Education Department of U.T. Administration vide letter

dated 30.06.2014 made a detailed representation to Government of India

highlighting history of appointment of Teachers under SSA and need of

their regularization. In the said letter, it was pointed out that as per

revised framework, additional teachers will be provided as per norms of

RTE to maintain pupil teacher ratio and no separate SSA Teachers cadre

is permissible as all teachers are ultimately to be borne on the State/U.T.

Government. Continuation of practice of engaging 647 Masters and 728

Primary teachers on contract under SSA results in creating of separate

SSA Cadre having different service condition from that of regular

teaching staff appointed against state cadre posts contrary to instructions

conveyed vide revised framework and interventions to State/U.T.

Education Secretaries and State Project Directors issued by MHRD on

01.01.2014. Reference was also made to letter dated 04.03.2013

addressed to Punjab Government. In the said letter, MHRD has pointed

out that in the State of Punjab separate cadre of SSA Teachers has been

created for whom different service condition has been spelt out and they

have been posted in only SSA schools. This is erroneous phenomena. All

schools receiving SSA funding are schools of State Government and so

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -9-

are all teachers. For the ready reference letter dated 30.06.2014 of U.T.

Administration is reproduced as below-

“Subject:- Creation of posts in Education

Department, UT Administration of

Chandigarh,

Sir,

I am directed to refer your office letter No.2-

2/2011-UT-I dated 8.5.2014.

The attached representation was carefully

examined and to address the grievance raised

therein, following is submitted:

1 That MHRD via letter No 2-2/2011-UT-1

dated 27.3.2014 asked the UT

Administration of Chandigarh to continue

the practice of engaging 647 Master and 728

Primary teachers on contract under SSA.

The copy of the letter is annexed as annexure

A-1.

2 That UT sent the proposal to MHRD vide

letter no. DPI-UT-A1(2)04/Vol.1/735A1

dated 17.08.2013 (copy of the letter is

annexed as Annexure-A-2) for the creation of

2483 posts of teachers including 1375 posts

of teachers already approved by SSA PAB,

The breakup of these posts is as under:

a. Masters (TGT)=1330

including 647 posts already

approved by SSA PAB

b. JBTs=1070 including 728

posts already approved by SSA

PAB

c. NTTs=83

1375 posts of teachers (Masters=647

and JBTs=728) were included in the

proposal in accordance with the

discussions held in the meeting of

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -10-

PAB held on 14.3.2011 where in

Secretary, MHRD has asked the UT to

appoint all teachers under SSA on

regular basis and not on contract.

The relevant part of the minutes of the

meeting is reproduced as under:

“On the issue of number of teacher

vacancies the UT officials Informed

that though the recruitment of

teachers was being undertaken

regularly, the vacancies were mainly

on account on low retention due to

the contractual natures of the posts. It

was further added that due to large

scale recruitment of teachers in the

adjacent states in regular post of

teachers there had been a large scale

retrenchment of newly recruited

teachers. The UT officials informed

that in case of regular teachers the

rate of retention was higher. The UT

officials were advised to create

regular posts for the teachers in order

to address the problem.”

3 That on 1.1.2014 MHRD has issued revised

framework and interventions to State/UT's

Education Secretaries and State Project

Directors after taking approval from

executive committee of National SSA

Mission chaired by HRD Minister. The

norms and interventions of SSA and RTE

2009 mentioned as hereunder:

a. As per norms issued by MHRD dated

1.1.2014 and decided in the meeting

of executive committee of National

SSA Mission chaired by HRD

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -11-

Minister instructions had been issued

to Education Secretaries of

States/UT's vide para 8, sub para-(a),

"Additional teachers will be provided

as per the RTE norms to all

Government and local body schools.”

b. That further in sub para-(i) it is stated

that, "The states should maintain

unified teaching cadres and no

separate "SSA Cadre" is permissible

as all teachers are ultimately to be

borne on the State/UT Government.

The copy of letter of MHRD and

revised norms are annexed as

annexure A-3 and A-4 respectively.

4 That as per revised framework as stated in

annexure A-4, all posts sanctioned by PAB

under SSA to UT, Chandigarh are as per

norms of RTE to maintain Pupil Teacher

ratio and no separate SSA teachers cadre is

permissible.

5. But vide letter No 2-2/2011-UT-1 dated

27.3.2014, MHRD asked the UT

Administration of Chandigarh to continue

the practice of engaging 647 Master and 728

Primary teachers on contract under

SSA(annexure A-1) which results in creating

of separate SSA cadre having different

service conditions from that of regular

teaching staff appointed against state cadre

posts contrary to the Instructions conveyed

vide revised framework and interventions to

State/UT's Education Secretaries and State

Project Directors Issued by MHRD on

1.1.2014 and so, U.T. Chandigarh will not

be able to able to comply with these, revised

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -12-

norms of SSA (annexure A-4).

6 That further to clear the rules, Sh. Rajender

Prashad, Under Secretary, MHRD, and

Department of School Education Literacy on

4.3.2013 issued letter No. F.No 14-1/2012-

EE.3 to Punjab Director General of School

Education in which it was mentioned as

under:

“SSA provides support for new

teachers in schools sanctioned under

SSA and also additional teachers in

existing schools based on the

enrolment. The support to States for

additional teachers and teacher's

salary is given at the same scale and

service conditions as of the teaching

cadre of the State. It is found that that

in Punjab a separate SSA cadre of

SSA Teachers has been created for

whom different service conditions has

been spelt out and they have been

posted in only SSA schools. This is

erroneous phenomenon. All schools

receiving SSA funding are schools of

the State Government and so are all

teachers. SSA is only programme

providing additional funding to the

state for Elementary Education

Development and reform.

The State is advised to kindly desist

from creating any analogous situation

on this account.” The copy of letter is

annexed as A-5.

7 That from perusal of annexure A-3, A-4 and

A-5, it is clear that all posts sanctioned

under SSA to States/UT's, herein UT,

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -13-

Chandigarh are as per norms of RTE Act

2009 and these posts are required to be

created in the Education Department,

Chandigarh Administration as suggested in

revised frame work of SSA

8 That already 65% of salary funds of these

posts of teachers are coming from SSA. Govt

of India and UT, Chandigarh is bearing 35%

of the salary funds.

9 That for the financial Implication, no major

burden is imposed neither on the Central

Government nor on the state (i.e. U.T

Chandigarh), since presently these teachers

are paid with Initial scale salary in

consolidated form (i.e. Initial Basic+ DA).

In view of the above, it is requested to give

approval for creation of remaining 647 posts of

Masters and 728 posts of Primary teachers under

Education Department. Chandigarh Administration

which was a part of our proposal for creation of

3472 posts (Annexure IV) against which 1108 posts

of teachers have been sanctioned by MHRD

(Annexure 1) to enable U.T. Chandigarh to merge

the Teachers appointed on contract under SSA In

the Education Department to meet with the

instructions of Secretary MHRD, norms of RTE and

latest norms and Intervention of SSA Issued on

1.1.2014 by MHRD with approval of National SSA

Mission headed by HRD Minister.

”

[Emphasis supplied]

8. The matter came up for consideration before Government of

India which vide impugned order dated 07.05.2021 rejected requests of

the U.T. Administration seeking regularization of teachers appointed

under SSA. Order dated 07.05.2021 reads as:-

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -14-

“Subject: Creation of posts of TGT & JBT in the

Education Department of Chandigarh-reg

Sir,

I am directed to refer to UT Administration of

Chandigarh's letter No. 2506-DSE-UT-S2-5(20)2004 dated

12.2.2021 subject. on the above mentioned

2. The UT Administration of Chandigarh vide D.O.

dated 11.12.2020 was requested to adequately address the

queries of the Department of Expenditure and also, to

clarify whether the UT Administration Chandigarh is

planning to regularize the services of the teachers engaged

on -contract basis in SSA scheme against these 1375 posts

of JBTs and TGTs as and when these posts are sanctioned.

3. In response, the UT Administration of Chandigarh

vide their letter. dated 12.2.2021 has informed that the

Department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration has

not framed any policy for regularization of staff working

on contract basis. Further, no decision is available in the

record to regularize the services of these contractual

teachers against 1375 posts of JBTs and TGTs for which

proposal is under consideration of MoE.

4. The issue of regularization of services of

contractual teachers engaged on contractual basis under

SSA was examined in the Ministry and it is to inform that

there are no such norms/guidelines of SSA to regularize the

services of contractual leachers. Further, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 10.4.2006 in

Appeal (Civil) No. 3595-3612 of 1999 [Secretary, State of

Karnataka vs ...Uma Devi & Others] had instructed the

Union/State Government regarding regularization of

contractual staffs. The Department of Personnel &

Training vide O.M. No. 49011/7/2020-Estt.(C) dated

7.10.2020 (copy enclosed) have enunciated the important

aspect of the said judgement dated 10.4.2006 for the

purpose of clarity of the judgment.

5. It is clear that a per the extent of rules, norms,

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -15-

there are no provisions for regularization of services of

Contractual teachers engaged on contract basis in SSA

scheme, therefore, the services of the contractual teachers

engaged on contract basis can’t be regularized and the

instant proposal for ‘creation of 647 posts’ of TGT and 728

posts of JBT’ can’t be processed further. This proposal may

be treated as closed.”

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners

were appointed by U.T. Chandigarh under SSA. They are working in

Government Schools run by U.T. Administration. They are either Junior

Basic Training Teacher (in short ‘JBT’) or Trained Graduate Teacher (in

short ‘TGT’). The U.T. Administration through multiple letters requested

Central Government to regularize petitioners. The Central Government

sanctioned 1130 posts of JBT and TGT in U.T. Chandigarh. The

petitioners could be regularized against sanctioned posts. The U.T.

Administration requested Central Government to grant approval to

regularize petitioners against aforesaid sanctioned posts, however, Central

Government has rejected proposal of the U.T. Administration on the

ground that petitioners cannot be regularized as per judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in ‘State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors.’, (2006) 4

SCC 1. The petitioners are working since 2005 and discharging same

duties as are discharged by regular teachers still they are getting lump

sum payment. They were selected after following due selection process

i.e. advertisement, written test, interview, medical examination followed

by police verification. They cannot be called as appointed irregularly or

illegally. For all intent and purposes, they were appointed in accordance

with law and mandate of Article 16 of Constitution of India.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -16-

10. Learned counsel for U.T. Administration and UOI submit

that petitioners were never appointed against sanctioned posts. There is

no policy of regularization of teachers appointed under SSA. Indubitably,

U.T. Administration on multiple occasions asked UOI to sanction posts

for teachers appointed under SSA, however, UOI never created or

sanctioned posts for teachers appointed under SSA. As per

communication dated 27.03.2014, 1108 posts for teachers were

sanctioned and created, however, it was made clear that 1375 teachers

appointed under SSA would continue to be engaged on contract basis.

This letter made intention of UOI clear that teachers appointed under SSA

would not be regularized. By impugned order, the Government has

rejected request of administration as well as teachers. The impugned

letter is based upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi

(supra). There is no infirmity in the said order. In the absence of

regularization policy, the petitioners cannot be regularized. This Court

cannot direct Government to create posts and in the absence of posts, the

petitioners cannot be regularized.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance.

12. The conceded position emerging from record is that the

petitioners are holding posts of teachers since 2005. Most of the teachers

are working for more than 20 years. They were appointed against an

advertisement which was floated by SSA Society under the flagship of

U.T. Administration. In the advertisement, selection criteria was

prescribed. 100 marks were bifurcated into different heads like academic

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -17-

qualification, written test, experience, interview etc. The petitioners

participated in the written test and were selected on the basis of their

merit. The entire selection process was as prescribed for selection of

regular teachers. The selected candidates were also subjected to medical

examination and police verification. The difference in the selection of

petitioners and regular teachers was only that in their appointment letter it

was jotted down that appointment is on ‘contract basis’.

13. The petitioners are working since 2005 without any

interruption. There is no stay in their favour. The respondent has not

framed any policy regarding regularization of its employees. The

petitioners are possessing qualification as prescribed for regular teachers.

They are not involved in any criminal activity or misconduct. No

departmental inquiry is pending against them. There was no illegality in

their appointment.

14. Different High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court

prior to 2006 in many cases directed States/Union of India to regularize

part time/work charged/adhoc/contractual/daily wage employees. The

foundation of all the judgments was length of service. In 2006, a

Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra), adverted to the question of

regularization of temporary/part time/adhoc/daily wage employees. The

Apex Court deprecated practice of employing temporary/part time or

contractual employees though it held that in exigency, State can make

appointment on contract basis. The Court held that regularization of

contractual or part time employees would amount to legalisation of

backdoor entrants. The regularization of part time employees is violative

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -18-

of Articles 14, 16 & 309 of the Constitution of India. The employees who

are working on daily wage cannot claim discrimination on the ground that

they have been paid less than regularly recruited employees. The High

Court should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization

or continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in

terms of the constitutional scheme. The High Court is not justified in

issuing interim orders in such cases. There is no fundamental or vested

right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporary or

contract basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service.

Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be

entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on

the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant

Rules. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an

order of the Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or

made permanent in the service. It would not be appropriate to jettison the

constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person

who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be

continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of

public appointment which is not permissible. If the contractual

employment is declared void on the ground that the parties were not

having equal bargaining power, it too would not enable the Court to grant

any relief to that employee. The claim acquired by him in the post on

which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -19-

considered to be of such a magnitude so as to enable the giving up of the

procedure established for making regular appointments to available posts

in the services of the State.

15. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in “Union of India v.

Ilmo Devi”, (2021) 20 SCC 290 considered question of regularization of

part time employees of Union of India. The Apex Court while setting

aside judgment of this Court has held that High Court in exercise of its

writ jurisdiction cannot ask State to regularize part time employees. The

Court has further held that part time employees cannot claim pay parity

with regular employees. The Court has noticed judgment of this Court in

Para 3.4 and returned findings in Para 16-19 which are reproduced as

below:

“3.4. By the impugned common judgment and

order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine

P&H 5144], the High Court has disposed of the aforesaid

writ petitions with the following directions : (Ilmo Devi

case [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H

5144] , SCC OnLine P&H paras 22-23)

“22. We, thus, direct the petitioner

authorities to revisit the whole issue in its right

perspective and complete the exercise to

reformulate their policy and take a decision to

sanction the posts in phased manner within a

specified time schedule. Let such a decision be

taken within a period of six months from the date of

receiving a certified copy of this order.

23. Till the exercise as directed above, is

undertaken, the respondents shall continue in

service with their current status but those of them

who have completed 20 years as part-time daily

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -20-

wagers, shall be granted “minimum” basic pay of

Group “D” post(s) w.e.f. 1-4-2015 and/or the date

of completion of 20 years contractual service,

whichever is later.”

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

16. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court

in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not

entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working

against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any

permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees

as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government

run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular

employees of the Government on the principle of equal

pay for equal work.

17. Applying the law laid down by this Court in

the aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High

Court in the impugned judgment and order [Union of

India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144], more

particularly, directions in paras 22 and 23 are

unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review

of the High Court in exercise of the power under Article

226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, it is required to

be noted that in the present case, the Union of

India/Department subsequently came out with a

regularisation policy dated 30-6-2014, which is absolutely

in consonance with the law laid down by this Court

in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006)

4 SCC 1], which does not apply to the part-time workers

who do not work on the sanctioned post. As per the settled

preposition of law, the regularisation can be only as per

the regularisation policy declared by the

State/Government and nobody can claim the

regularisation as a matter of right dehors the

regularisation policy. Therefore, in absence of any

sanctioned post and considering the fact that the

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -21-

respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time

Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled

for the benefit of regularisation under the regularisation

policy dated 30-6-2014.

18. Though, we are of the opinion that even the

direction contained in para 23 for granting minimum

basic pay of Group ‘D’ posts from a particular date to

those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily

wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time

wagers, who are working for four to five hours a day and

cannot claim the parity with other Group ‘D’ posts.

However, in view of the order passed by this Court dated

22-7-2016 [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2016 SCC OnLine

SC 1933] while issuing notice in the present appeals, we

are not quashing and setting aside the directions

contained in para 23 in the impugned judgment and order

[Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H

5144] so far as the respondents' employees are concerned.

19. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, both the appeals succeed. The impugned

judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015

SCC OnLine P&H 5144] passed by the High Court and,

more particularly, the directions contained in paras 22

and 23 in the impugned judgment and order [Union of

India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] are

hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that

quashing and setting aside the directions issued in terms

of para 23 in the impugned judgment and order [Union of

India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] shall

not affect the case of the respondents and they shall be

entitled to the reliefs as per para 23 of the impugned

judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015

SCC OnLine P&H 5144] passed by the High Court.”

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -22-

16. A two Judge bench of Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State

of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 had the occasion to consider question of

regularization of Special Police Officers (SPOs) appointed under Section

17 of Police Act, 1861. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon an

earlier judgment of this court dismissed petitions of 20 SPOs and matter

travelled up to Apex Court which turned down claim of the respondent-

State of Punjab that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb appellants

despite their service of decades. The Court held that State cannot take

undue advantage of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra).

The said judgment cannot become licence for exploitation by the State.

After availing services for decades, it is not justified on the part of the

State to take a defence that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the

appellants.

17. In State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247,

the Supreme Court noticed misuse by the State and its agencies, non-

compliance of order of the Apex Court and denying benefits to the

employees. The Court noticed that the object as such was two folds.

Firstly, those persons who had put in more than 10 years of services were

to be considered for regularization in view of the long service. Secondly,

it was to ensure that departments do not perpetuate the practice of

employing persons on daily wage, adhoc or casual basis. It was held that

persons who had worked for more than 10 years on 10.04.2006 were

entitled for regularization and necessary directions were issued in the said

case and those not entitled because of lack of educational qualifications

were to be regularized on a lower post.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -23-

18. Supreme Court recently in ‘Jaggo v. Union of India and

others’, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, noticing judgment of Constitutional

Bench in Uma Devi (supra) has held that no employee can be kept

temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be

considered for regularization. The relevant extracts of the judgment read

as:

“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.

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

16 . The appellants' consistent performance over

their long tenures further solidifies their claim for

regularization. At no point during their engagement did

the respondents raise any issues regarding their

competence or performance. On the contrary, their

services were extended repeatedly over the years, and

their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally

increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their

satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of

alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an

afterthought and lacks credibility.

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the

appellants' roles were not only essential but also

indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their

sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled

with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -24-

treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of

this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination,

amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma

Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who

have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and

necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.

The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and

illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional

requirements. However, where appointments were not

illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had

served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned

functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and

humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,

continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks

inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,

transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a

scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent

judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and

others v. Union of India and others (2024) 1 SCR 1230, it

was 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 judgment have been

reproduced below:

“6. The application of the judgment in Uma

Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit

squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific

circumstances under which the appellants were

employed and have continued their service. The

reliance on procedural formalities at the outset

cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive

rights that have accrued over a considerable period

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -25-

through continuous service. Their promotion was

based on a specific notification for vacancies and a

subsequent circular, followed by a selection

process involving written tests and interviews,

which distinguishes their case from the

appointments through back door entry as discussed

in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi

(supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and

“illegal” appointments underscoring the

importance of considering certain

appointments even if were not made strictly in

accordance with the prescribed Rules and

Procedure, cannot be said to have been made

illegally if they had followed the procedures of

regular appointments such as conduct of written

examinations or interviews as in the present

case…”

XXX XXX XXX XXX

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.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -26-

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government institutions, often

face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the

foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have

been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have

increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term

obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest

in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees

engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and

integral to the functioning of an institution are often

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

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -27-

not only perpetuates exploitation but also

demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the

obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits : Temporary

employees are often denied fundamental benefits

such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,

and paid leave, even when their tenure spans

decades. This lack of social security subjects them

and their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries

and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional

principles, it is regrettable that its principles are

often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny

legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This

judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal”

and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held

that employees in irregular appointments, who were

engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served

continuously for more than ten years, should be

considered for regularization as a one-time

measure. However, the laudable intent of the

judgment is being subverted when institutions rely

on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of

employees, even in cases where their 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

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -28-

purpose, effectively weaponizing it against

employees who have rendered indispensable

services over decades.”

[Emphasis supplied]

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India Vs. K.

Velajagan And Ors.”, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 837 decided on 04.02.2025

has observed that decision in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a

shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the

employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of

regularization.

20. A conspectus of afore-cited judgments leads to the

conclusion that Courts have rejected plea of regularization because

claimants were not recruited in accordance with procedure as

contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The

Courts formed opinion that executive has made appointment of these

employees without following procedure prescribed for regular

appointment. On account of contractual/daily/ad hoc appointment,

meritorious candidates do not participate and mediocre come forward.

The executive in violation of procedure ensures backdoor entry of

favourite and less meritorious candidates. The regularization of these

backdoor entrants would encourage executive and jettison of rule of law

as well as mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Unless the

appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper

competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any

right on the appointee. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the

Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -29-

regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was

made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. It would not be

appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to

take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed

should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be

creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. A

total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible,

given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean

that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually

or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of

such employment brings at least some succour to them.

21. The States/U.T. have made hay from the findings of the

Constitution Bench. They have started making appointment on

contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every department including

education which is a character and nation building department. Many

teachers appointed on contract basis are getting miniscule salary even in

comparison to regularly appointed peons. The exchequer is siphoned off

for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying regular

pay scale. The Supreme Court, in case of exigencies, had permitted to

make appointment on contract basis and did not permit States and its

agencies to make it a routine practice. The Court had emphasized to make

appointments in public employment after following procedure prescribed

for regular recruitment and in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India. Intention and imprimatur of the court was

to inhibit and discourage backdoor entry. The Court did not permit to

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -30-

make contractual recruitment for infinity and pay minimum of pay scale.

The State being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take

advantage of mass unemployment. It is expected to make recruitment in

accordance with prescribed procedure and on permanent basis. It cannot

keep hanging sword of termination.

22. The claim of the petitioners needs to be examined in the light

of aforesaid judgments. The petitioners are not backdoor entrants. Their

appointment was made after following procedure. There was

advertisement. The petitioners filed applications. They were subjected to

written test, interview, medical examination and police verification. In

the advertisements, maximum age as well as qualification was prescribed.

No candidate was selected who was not possessing prescribed

qualifications. The appointments were made against posts sanctioned by

Project Approval Board in MHRD, New Delhi under SSA, U.T.

Chandigarh. They are uninterruptedly working with University since

2012.

23. Peculiar features of the selection of the petitioners are that

they were appointed under SSA programme. Secretary, MHRD in the

meeting held on 14.03.2011 asked U.T. to appoint all teachers under SSA

on regular basis. In the revised norms, MHRD clarified that States should

maintain unified teaching cadre as all teachers are ultimately to be borne

on the State/U.T. Government. U.T. in its letters pointed out to UOI that

continuation of SSA Teachers on contract basis results in creation of

separate cadre. Under Secretary, MHRD on 04.03.2013 asked State of

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -31-

Punjab not to maintain separate cadre of SSA Teachers and pointed out

that all schools getting SSA funding are schools of the State Government

and so are all teachers.

Different letters of U.T. make it clear that appointment of

teachers was made as per SSA Programme launched by MHRD. Project

Approval Board sanctioned posts and appointment of petitioners was

made. U.T. was always of the opinion that petitioners should be

regularized. U.T. was asking UOI to create posts. UOI created posts but

asked U.T. to continue to engage petitioners on contract basis. UOI

rejected proposals of U.T. relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in

Uma Devi (supra). The petitioners are performing same duties which are

performed by regular teachers appointed by U.T. Administration. They

are working in Government schools along with regular teachers.

24. The case of petitioners is squarely covered by recent

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), Shripal and

Another Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Online SC 221

and Dharam Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Another, 2025

SCC OnLine SC 1735. In view of those judgments, reliance placed by

respondents upon Uma Devi (supra) is misplaced. It is apt to notice that

during the course of hearing, despite being repeatedly asked, learned

counsel for the respondent could not point out any judgment where

regularization was denied in spite of appointment after following due

procedure. The petitioners are not backdoor entrants and they were

appointed against posts sanctioned by Project Approval Board. The

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -32-

respondent in the teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi

(supra) continued to engage petitioners on contract basis. Judgments

cited by respondents criticize irregular and backdoor entry. By placing

reliance upon Uma Devi (supra), the respondents have raised self-

contradictory stand. On one hand, the respondent did not make regular

appointments in the teeth of Supreme Court judgments and on the other

hand despite following due appointment procedure has kept the

petitioners contractual for almost 20 years.

25. As per judgment of this Court as well as Supreme Court,

adhoc, temporary, part time, daily wage or contractual workers cannot be

regularized if their appointment was not made as per procedure

prescribed for regular appointments. The petitioners were appointed after

following due procedure. They are fully qualified. They are working

with the U.T. Chandigarh since 2005 and that too without any protection

of this Court or any other Court. They were selected against posts

sanctioned by Project Approval Board. They cannot be denied

regularization on the basis of absence of posts or regularization policy.

26. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed.

27. The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the

petitioners who have been appointed under SSA and are working for more

than 10 years as on date i.e. 14.11.2025. The needful shall be done within

six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 6

weeks from today, they shall be deemed to be regularized.

CWP-20096-2021 and connected cases -33-

28. To avoid future similar petitions and save valuable time,

energy and resources of litigants as well as this Court, I find it appropriate

to direct the respondents to apply this judgment to all the similarly

situated teachers.

29. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

November 14, 2025

Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No