1

2026:CGHC:23672

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 4605 of 2021

1 - Manish Mishra S/o Shri D.P. Mishra Aged About 50 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam Korba, R/o

Kosabadi, Paudi Bahar, Ward No. 21, Near Mgos Church, Korba, Distt.

Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2 - Vikas Shukla S/o Shri V.K. Shukla Aged About 45 Years Occupation

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

3 - Uday Mandal S/o N.G. Mandal Aged About 42 Years Occupation

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

4 - Manoj Shrivas S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Shrivas Aged About 45 Years

Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

5 - Sonau Ram Yadav S/o Shri Dokru Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years

Occupation Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

6 - Khikram S/o Shri Nandram Aged About 50 Years Occupation Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

7 - Suklal Kewat S/o Shri Gambhir Kewat Aged About 40 Years

Occupation Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

8 - Sukhmandas S/o Shri Jeewandas Aged About 50 Years Occupation

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

9 - Ravi Sahu S/o Shru Ugrav Sahu Aged About 45 Years Occupation

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

2

10 - Ravi Rathore S/o Shri Jageshwar Rathore Aged About 44 Years

Occupation Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

11 - Rajesh Kewat S/o Shri Rambahori Aged About 45 Years

Occupation Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

12 - Suresh Shrivas S/o Shri Baldau Shrivas Aged About 42 Years

Occupation Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

13 - Trilochan Rathore S/o Shri Chaitram Aged About 38 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

14 - Kehmant Patel S/o Shriu Sonau Aged About 48 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

15 - Amrit Lal S/o Shri Rupsingh Aged About 50 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

16 - Sanjay Kumar Jha S/o Shri Jagdish Jha Aged About 53 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

17 - Rajkumar Sahu S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

18 - Suresh S/o Shri Patere Aged About 47 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

19 - Pappu S/o Shri Patre Suryawanshi Aged About 50 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

20 - Raja Rane S/o Shri Munnilal Aged About 47 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

21 - Raj Kumar S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 35 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

3

22 - Safar Ali S/o Shri Mahabub Aliaged Aged About 45 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

23 - Mohan Lal Dahariya S/o Shri Itwarwi Ram Aged About 47 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

24 - Dhaneshwar Rajwade S/o Shri Pasarnath Rajwade Aged About 50

Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil

And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

25 - Raja Ram S/o Shri Latelram Aged About 50 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

26 - Panchram S/o Shri Jethuram Aged About 50 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

27 - Phiruram S/o Shri Dukaluram Aged About 45 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

28 - Ramesh Sidar S/o Shri Shyamlal Aged About 47 Years Occupation

- Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

29 - Tijram Dewangan S/o Shri Shyamlal Dewangan Aged About 41

Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil

And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

30 - Daneshwar Vaishnav S/o Shri Kushwaha Das Vaishnav Aged About

42 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba,

Tahsil And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

31 - Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Yashwant Singh Aged About 43 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

32 - Gaurishankar Sahu S/o Shri N.P. Sahu Aged About 45 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

33 - Lilamber S/o Shri Hajari Lal Yadav Aged About 46 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

34 - Hem Lal Choubey S/o Shri Mangal Choudhary Aged About 48

4

Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil

And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

35 - Shatrughan Tiwari S/o Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari Aged About 51 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

36 - Resham Lal S/o Shri Panchram Aged About 49 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

37 - Brij Lal S/o Shri Santosh Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

38 - Dileshwar S/o Shri Kanhaiya Aged About 51 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

39 - Radhe Yadav S/o Shri Vedram Yadav Aged About 49 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

40 - Sumitra Bai W/o Shri Shyamlal Aged About 50 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

41 - Billu Kodaya S/o Shri Narsaiya Aged About 49 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

42 - Chankeslu S/o Shri Chanaiya Aged About 50 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

43 - Mohan Rao S/o Shri Apparao Aged About 49 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

44 - Om Prakash S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 51 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

45 - Gopi Chand Rathore S/o Lt. Punnu Ram Rathore Aged About 51

Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil

And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

46 - Raju S/o Shri Kewal Prasad Aged About 49 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

5

(Chhattisgarh)

47 - Vinod Kanwar S/o Shri Jira Singh Kanwar Aged About 46 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

48 - Ramlu S/o Shri Vainktaiya Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

49 - Keshar Lal Kanwar S/o Shri Tikait Ram Aged About 55 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

50 - S. Buchhi S/o Shri Ankaiya Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

51 - Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal Aged About 49 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

52 - Santosh S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad Aged About 50 Years Occupation

- Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

53 - Sheela W/o Shri Jailal Aged About 53 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

54 - Balram S/o Shri Bhaiyaram Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation

- Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

55 - Shrinivas S/o Shri Rituraj Singh Aged About 52 Years Occupation -

Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

56 - Dadu Ram Patel S/o Late Gangaram Patel Aged About 38 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

57 - Sujeet Banjare S/o Reshamlal Banjare Aged About 47 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

58 - Vinay Choubey S/o Lt. Anil Choubey Aged About 48 Years

Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And

Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

6

59 - Savitri W/o Lt. Nahri Maitri Aged About 53 Years Occupation - Daily

Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba

(Chhattisgarh)

60 - Deenbandhu Das Mahant S/o Kamal Das Mahant Aged About 56

Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Nagar Nigam, Korba, Tahsil

And Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Urban

Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

2 - The Under Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And

Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3 - The Municipal Corporation Korba, Through Its Commissioner, Distt.

Korba (Chhattisgarh)

4 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Korba, Distt. Korba

(Chhatisgarh)

... Respondent(s)

Date of Hearing : 11.5.2026

Date of Pronouncement : 15.6.2026

For Petitioners :Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate along with

Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate

For State :Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L.

For Respondents No.

3 and 4

:Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

CAV Judgment

1)This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by sixty petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:

i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

to quash the impugned order dated 12.05.2020

passed by respondent no. 2.

7

ii. to That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough

to direct the respondent authorities regularize the

services of the petitioners from 14.07.2008.

iii. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court

deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted

to the petitioners in the interest of justice along

with cost of the petition.

2)Facts of the case in a nutshell are that initially petitioners were

engaged as daily wage employees under respondent No. 3 and at

present they have completed more than 20 years of continuous

service. A list of daily wage employees working with respondent

No. 3 including petitioners was published on 2.8.2011 describing

dates of appointment and respective posts. Meanwhile, State

Government issued a circular depicting parameters for

regularization of services of daily wage employees on 5.3.2008.

This circular is in two parts – the first part deals with regularization

of services of daily wage employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988

and the second part deals with regularization of employees

engaged between 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1997. Clause three of part

second deals with break in service and states that if there is break

in service for more than one month in a particular year, claim of

such an employee should not be considered for the purposes of

regularization. While some of the petitioners were appointed prior

to 1997, the remaining petitioners were appointed in the year

1997 and onwards. A copy of letter dated 11.8.2017 is annexed to

the writ petition and marked as Annexure P/4. This letter is

appended with the list of sanctioned and vacant posts on

8

31.7.2017 describing the number of vacancies available with

respondent No. 3.

3)Respondent No. 3 took decision to discontinue services of daily

wage employees and thereafter petitioners preferred WPS No.

6112 of 2010 wherein order of status quo was passed in favor of

the petitioners vide 28.10.2010. In between the department, vide

its order dated 14.07.2008, took a decision to regularize the

services of 35 employees, appointed in the year 1998 and

onward. Subsequently, petitioners made a representation before

the Principal Secretary, Urban Administration And Development

Department on 12.9.2018 claiming therein regularization of their

services. The Petitioners preferred WPS No. 7815 of 2018

claiming therein regularization which was disposed vide order

dated 27.3.2019 directing the respondents to consider the

representation(s) preferred by the petitioner within four months. In

compliance to the aforesaid order, respondent No. 3 vide order

dated 4.10.2019 recommended names of 57 daily wage

employees for regularization but respondent No. 1 vide order

dated 12.5.2020 rejected the representations made by the

petitioners on the ground that petitioners were appointed after

31.12.1997 and there were breaks in their service for more than

one month in a calendar year.

4)Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that petitioners were appointed between years 1997 to 1999

9

under the respondent No. 3 and nature of their engagement is

inherently perennial. He further submits that petitioners are full-

time employee working since last 23-24 years without any break.

He contends that petitioners were appointed against sanctioned

and vacant posts and according to letter dated 11.8.2017 posts

are lying vacant with the respondent No. 3. He further contends

that claim of petitioners cannot be rejected solely on the ground of

break in service. He has placed reliance on the judgments

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Dharam

Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Another

1

and Prem

Chand and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another

2

. He

prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the

services of the petitioners.

5)On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the

respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that petitioners were never

appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts and most of the

them were appointed after 31.12.1997 therefore their claim with

regard to regularization is misconceived and they cannot take

shelter of circular dated 5.3.2008. He further submits that no

advertisement was issued for filling up vacant posts and

petitioners were never interviewed therefore also they have no

right to claim regularization. He contends that respondent No. 1

duly scrutinized the claim of petitioners and rejected the same on

1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

2. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 394

10

the ground that petitioners were appointed after 31.12.1997 and

there were breaks in their service. He has placed reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Uma Devi

and Others

3

. He further contends that this petition deserves to be

dismissed.

6)Mr. Vivek S. Ojha, learned State counsel would support the

arguments advanced by Mr. Agrawal.

7)I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein above and

carefully perused the documents placed on record.

8)It appears that petitioners are working with respondent No. 3 from

year 1997 onward. A list of daily wage employees was published

by respondent No. 3 on 11.8.2017 which depicts the dates of

appointment and the posts occupied by the daily wage employees

working with respondent No. 3 including petitioners. The said list

shows that daily wage employees were appointed between year

1990 to 2000. A circular was issued by the State Government on

5.3.2008 streamlined procedure to regularize services of daily

wage employees.

9)Petitioners claimed regularization of their services in light of the

second part of said circular which deals with regularization of

3. (2006) 4 SCC 1

11

services of daily wage employee engaged after 1997. According

to this part, claim of an employee for regularization shall be

considered if he/she has completed ten years of uninterrupted

service and there is break in service not more than one month in a

particular year.

10)It is not in dispute that petitioners are still working with the

respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1 has considered the claim

of some of the daily wage employees. Since more than 175 posts

were lying vacant, petitioners preferred WPS No. 7815 of 2018

claiming therein regularization, which was disposed directing

respondent authorities to consider their claim within period of four

months. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.5.2020 rejected

the claim of petitioners on two grounds – (i) petitioners were

appointed after 31.12.1997 and (ii) there were breaks in their

service for period of more than one month in a particular year.

11)In Dharam Singh (supra), the claim for regularization of daily

wage employees, who were engaged w.e.f. 8.4.1997 was rejected

by the State citing financial constraints. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court considered various aspects such as misuse of “temporary”

labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using

outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits. It

was held that State departments must keep and produce accurate

establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing

arrangements and they must explain with evidence, why they

12

prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the

work is perennial. It was also held that State is not a mere market

participant but a constitutional employer and it cannot balance

budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and

recurring public functions. Relevant paragraphs 17 and 18 read as

under :-

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall

that the State (here referring to both the Union and

the State governments) is not a mere market

participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot

balance budgets on the backs of those who perform

the most basic and recurring public functions.

Where work recurs day after day and year after

year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its

sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The

long-term extraction of regular labour under

temporary labels corrodes confidence in public

administration and offends the promise of equal

protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place

in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides

fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on

lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-

hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The

State Departments must keep and produce accurate

establishment registers, muster rolls and

outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain,

with evidence, why they prefer precarious

engagement over sanctioned posts where the work

is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record

should show what alternatives were considered,

why similarly placed workers were treated

differently, and how the chosen course aligns with

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged

insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional

discipline that should inform every decision affecting

those who keep public offices running.

13

12)Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chand

(supra) considered the issue of break in service ranging from 5 to

187 days and took note of the fact that large number of similarly

placed employees have been regularized in various departments

of State in view of policy instructions in spite of the fact that there

were breaks in their service. Relevant paragraphs 18 to 20 read

as under :-

18.The core question that falls for consideration is

whether the Appellants are covered under the policy

instructions dated 26.05.2003, 15.12.2006 and

18.03.2011 issued by the State of Punjab for

regularization of ad hoc employees. It is not

disputed that the Appellants were appointed before

13.06.1996. The Respondents have sought to

exclude the Appellants solely on the ground that

theirservice tenures contained breaks ranging from

5 to 187 days. Therefore, it has been argued that

their engagements were not continuous, making

them ineligible under the policy. Furthermore, it has

been argued that they are also ineligible under the

policy dated 18.03.2011 as the Appellants were no

longer in service when it came into force.

19. We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has

come on record that a large number of similarly

placed employees have been regularized in various

departments of the State Government in view of the

policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006

in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their

service as in the case of the present Appellants. The

details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who

were given the benefit of the policies have been

brought forward who had breaks ranging from a

period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that

in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been

disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for

parity is made out as the Appellants have service

record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187

days. The State cannot application of the policy to

the Appellants, who selectively deny the are

identically situated with these persons, with no

cogent justification.

14

20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the

Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer

examination, artificial in nature. The Appellants were

consistently re-engaged, save for short breaks, and

continued to discharge their duties to the

satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the

same posts. The breaks do not reflect any genuine

abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of

employment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that

the long service of the Appellants cannot be

disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling

the initial employment as ad hoc.

13)With regard to Uma Devi (supra), respondent authorities failed to

establish that petitioners were not appointed against any

sanctioned and vacant posts and their appointments were illegal

and arbitrary. In Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad

4

, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi (supra)

cannot be used 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. Relevant paragraph 14 reads as under :-

14.The Respondent Employer places reliance on

Umadevi (supra) 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,

4. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221

15

cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or

continued unfair practices.

14)In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the principles

articulated in Shripal (supra) apply with full force to the present

case. Furthermore, the conduct of the respondent authorities is

highly discriminatory. The claims of other daily-wage employees

for regularization have already been favorably considered,

whereas the petitioners, who are sailing in the same boat, have

been left in the lurch. Accordingly, the order dated 12.5.2020

(Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby

quashed.

15)In result, the instant writ petition is allowed.

16)It is directed that the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 shall re-consider

the claim of petitioners with regard to regularization of their

services in light of the observations made herein-above. It is

expected that the entire exercise shall be completed by the

authority(s) concerned within period of 180 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE

A j i n k y a

The date when

the judgment

is reserved

The date

when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment

is uploaded on the website

Operative Full

11.5.2026 15.6.2026 ---- 15.6.2026