IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR)

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

WP.CT NO.48 OF 2025

Shri K. Prem Kumar and Others

VS.

Union of India and Others

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

With

WP.CT NO.60 OF 2025

The Lt. Governor and other

VS.

Shri K. Prem Kumar and Others

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Adv.

Reserved on : 25.02.2026

Judgment on : 02.03.2026

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The instant two writ petitions are directed against the same and

similar impugned Judgement and order dated June 18, 2025 passed

2

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in

OA/351/384/2025.

2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal

held that the applicants have been working in the department for a

considerable period and their job was perennial in nature. Therefore,

they should not have been deprived of the benefits granted to other

similarly placed casual, part-time and contractual employees as per

the Judgment relied upon by the Tribunal and further directed the

respondents to consider the case of the applicants and extend the

consequential benefits to them within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. WP.CT 48 of 2025, filed at the behest of Petitioner/Applicants, and

WP.CT 60 of 2025, at the behest of Administration/Respondents,

are taken up together for their disposal by a common judgment.

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ petitions are as

follows:

a) The petitioner No. 1 and 2 were appointed as part-time

Choudhary on a consolidated pay of Rs. 600/- per month

respectively against the existing vacancies vide Order No. 600

dated 22

nd

July 1996 and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on

compassionate ground as part-time Choudhary, on a consolidated

pay of Rs. 600/-, against the vacancy held by his grandfather,

3

Shri M Hamza, vide Order No. 08 dated 6th December 1996 under

the respondent No. 5, the petitioners were discharging their duties

as a full-time employee for 8 hours a day.

b) The petitioner No. 1 initially filed an original application before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, Circuit Bench sitting at

Port Blair, being OA. No. 50 of 1997 seeking a direction upon the

respondent authorities to regularise his service. The said

application was disposed of vide Order dated 12

th

July 1999,

whereby the learned tribunal directed the respondent authorities

to consider the creation of a regular post and framing of

recruitment rules, and to induct the petitioner if the petitioner No.

1 is otherwise found suitable.

c) Despite such direction, the respondent authorities did not comply

with the said order, as such a contempt application has been filed

and ultimately the respondent authorities have given an

undertaking to implement the said order as such contempt

application was dismissed.

d) Subsequently, vide order dated 20

th

February, 2001, the

respondent No. 5 passed a speaking order, thereby negated the

claim of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners, along with

one Mohammed, filed a Second Original application, being O.A.

No. 78/AN/2005 before the learned tribunal seeking directions

4

upon the respondent authorities to regularise the service of the

petitioners.

e) After hearing the parties, vide Order dated 22

nd

May 2007, the

learned tribunal allowed the application, and directed the

respondent authorities to consider in detail the entire functional

responsibility of Choudhary, work out the total number of full

time Choudharies and frame necessary recruitment rules,

reflecting therein the total number of posts of Choudhary, keeping

in view of the facts that the petitioners had been performing the

duties of Choudhary for the past decade plus, consider the case of

the petitioners for regularization as Choudharies.

f) Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the Respondents

challenged the said impugned order dated 22nd May 2007 by

preferring a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court by way of writ

petition being WPCT No. 178 of 2007, which was finally dismissed

on September 5, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a

contempt application before the Learned Tribunal, being CP No. 8

of 2008.

g) At the same time, the respondent authorities preferred a Special

Leave Petition against the order dated 5th September 2007 passed

by the Ld. Tribunal before the Supreme Court of India, and vide

order dated 5th December 2008, the Special Leave Petition filed

by the respondent Authorities was dismissed.

5

h) Despite dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the respondents/administration filed a

Miscellaneous application, being MA No. 5/AN/2011, in the

contempt application being CPC No. 8/2008.

i) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide Order

dated 16.02.2011, the Learned Tribunal dismissed said

Miscellaneous application by imposing a cost of Rs. 250/-, and

issued a rule upon the Administrator issuing show cause as to

why a contempt of court proceeding should not be initiated

against them for non-implementation of the order of the tribunal,

which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

j) After the issuance of the Showcause notice, the said contempt

application was taken up for hearing on 16.12.2011, wherein the

respondent administration filed an affidavit of compliance,

thereby informing the court that the petitioners have been

appointed on an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months against a

Group D post. A supernumerary post will be created for all the 49

Choudharies. A necessary proposal was sent to the Union of India

on 14.12.2009, and the financial implications were worked out on

the presumption that the post would be sanctioned from

December 2009. Draft Recruitment Rule had been forwarded, and

6 months' time was sought for the full implementation of the

order. However, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the

6

respondents have failed to implement the order of the Tribunal

and therefore granted 8 weeks' time from the date of receipt of the

order for full compliance of the order. In the event the order is not

complied with, the Union Home Secretary/Lt. Governor will

appear in person on the next date for further proceedings in the

matter. As such, the Miscellaneous application for extension of

time, being MA No. 45/AN/2011, was finally stood disposed of.

k) In the contempt application, the respondent authorities filed

another affidavit of compliance without complying with the said

order of the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal vide order

dated 27th April 2012, was pleased to order that the Recruitment

Rules, to be framed, would be enforced from the date of the

judgement i.e. 22nd May 2007 and the regularization of the

petitioner will also relate to the said date with consequential

benefits.

l) The respondent authorities, in compliance with the order dated

27

th

April 2012, passed in MA No. 27 of 2012, issued Order No.

868 dated 24

th

August 2012, whereby the appointment of the

petitioners were given effect from 22

nd

May 2007 and in the said

order there was no specification with regard to scale of pay and

also there was no release the service benefit of the petitioner from

the date of their initial engagement. However, subsequently, by

means of an Office Order No. 384 dated 17

th

September 2012, the

7

respondent authorities re-fixed the pay of the petitioners with

effect from 22nd May 2007 in the pay Band I of Rs. 5200-2200

with grade pay of Rs. 1800/-.

m) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 27th April 2012

passed in MA No. 27/AN/2012 in O.A. No. 78/AN/2005 preferred

a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, after hearing the parties

set aside the order passed in Miscellaneous application and while

passing the said order it was made clear that it would be open to

the petitioners to challenge the action of the administration, if the

petitioners are aggrieved by such action of the administration

passed under the dint of the order dated 27th April 2012. The

petitioner waited for a year, when the administration were sitting

tight over the issue, finding no other alternative the petitioners

preferred the third Original application being OA No. 351/384 of

2018 before the Learned Tribunal seeking the following relief

prayed therein which are as inter alia:

a) Leave may be granted to move the petitioners to file the

instant application jointly under Rule 4(5) (a) of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (procedure) Rules,1987 as all the

petitioners have a common grievance and they are

aggrieved by the action on the respondents for not

considering the legitimate claim of the petitioners for the

release of arrears, seniority, framing of recruitment Rules,

Pensionary benefits, annual increments and non realease of

the sevice benefits from the date of the initial appointment.

8

b) An order be passed directing the respondents authorities to

frame the recruitment authoritites to frame the recruitment

rules for the post of choudhary by regularizing the service of

the petitioners from the date of initial appointment by

creating the promotional avenues as per the Andaman &

Nicobar Land Revenue and Land Reform Regulation, 1966

and thereby extending the financial benefits to the

petitioners by releasing the arrears from the date af mitial

appointment

c) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to

frame the Recruitment Rules and release all the

consequential benefits from their date of initial appointment

to the post of Choudhary.

d) An order be passed directing respondents authorities to

release the entire arrears to the petitioners from the date of

their initial appointment to the post of Choudhary.

e) An order be passed directing the same respondent

authorities to transmit the case records before this Hon'ble

Court, SO that after perusing the conscionable justice may

be rendered to the petitioner;

f) Any other order or orders, further order or orders as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

5. Despite the third round of litigation, the learned Tribunal simply

allowed the OA as aforesaid and relegated the matter to the

respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicants in the

light of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India and

extended the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a time

frame without allowing their legitimate claim for the release of

9

arrears, seniority, framing of recruitment Rules, Pensionary benefits,

annual increments from the date of the initial appointment. Hence,

the applicants, being aggrieved, filed this Petition.

CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS

6. Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that similarly situated

employees had their services regularised from the date of their initial

engagement pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. At the same time, the applicants are also entitled to

regularisation of their services from the date of their initial

engagement, along with arrears, seniority, pensionary benefits, and

other consequential benefits.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the

following judgments in support of his submissions:

i) ONGC Versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others

1

,

decided on 17.04.2015, particularly paragraph nos. 1,9,25,27,39

and 42;

ii) Union Of India Rep By Government of….Vs.Velajagan , 2025

SCC Online SC 837, decided on 4

th

February 2025;

iii) State of West Bengal and others-Versus-Pantha Chatterjee

and others

2

, decided on 07.07.2003, particularly paragraphs

No.2,3,4,16,18 and 19;

1

AIR 2015 SC 2210

2

AIR 2003 SC 3569

10

iv) Amarkant Rai` v. State of Bihar & Ors.

3

, decided on 13th

March 2015, particularly paragraphs No. 3, 14, and 16.

v) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

4

,

decided on 13th November 2017 particularly paragraph nos. 7, 8,

and 9;

vi) Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India , in SLP No. 22241-

42 of 2016 Decided on 30.01.2024, particularly paragraph nos.7,

8, and 9

vii) Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 in Civil

Appeal No.8157 of 2024, decided on December 20, 2024,

particularly paragraphs 5,6,8,14,25 to 27;

viii) Shripal & Anr v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , 2025 SCC

Online SC 221 Civil Appeal Nos. 8158-8179 of 2024, decided on

January 31, 2025, particularly paragraph nos. 4, 7, 13, and 18;

ix) Shri J. Loknathan and others v. Union Of India And Others

in WPCT NO. 666 of 2012, decided on 09.04.2013;

x) Shri. N. R Sudheer Kumar and others v. The Lieutenant

Governor and others in WPA/74/2021, decided on 02.04.2024;

xi) The Lieutenant Governor and others v. N. R Sudheer Kumar

and others, 2024 SCC Online Cal 11222 in MAT/29/2024,

decided on 16.12.2024;

3

(2015) 8 SCC 265

4

AIR 2018 SC 233

11

xii) Directorate of Transport-Versus- Hari Shankar Yadav, 2019

SCC Online Cal 1852, in WP No. 235 of 2018, decided on

22.07.2019

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/

ADMINISTRATION:

8. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Administration, Mr Rakesh

Kumar, contended that after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition,

the Administration approached the GOI, MHA vide letter No 2-

9/2007-Rev-Vol. Il dated 24.03.2011. The GOI, MHA vide letter

No.U-14014/18/2009-ANL dated 26.04.2011 (Flag-D) has also

conveyed the approval of the competent authority for creation of 41

supernumerary posts of Choudharies in the Pay Band-1 of Rs 5200-

20200 + GP Rs. 1800/- for matriculates and Pay Band-IS Rs 4440-

7440-GP Rs. 1300/- for non-matriculates purely on personal basis

for the affected individuals who would be regularized against these

posts as per the Court's Order. These posts were to be abolished

upon falling vacant and were not to be filled up again. The

regularisation was to take effect prospectively.

9. The Administration has appointed 41 Choudharies on

Supernumerary post as under,

1. Order No.865 dated 30.08.2011(For Non-Matriculate in the

Pay Band of Rs.4400-7440 plus Grade Pay of Rs.1300/). A

total of 18 candidates were appointed as Non-matriculate.

12

2. Order No.864 dated 30.08.2011. (for Matriculate in the Pay

Band of Rs 5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- A total

of 20 candidates were appointed as Matriculate.

3. Order No. 1006 dated 11.10.2011 (For Non-Matriculate in

the Pay Band of Rs.4400-7440 plus Grade Pay of Rs.1300/1

One candidate Shri T Veeran was appointed as Non-

matriculate

4. Order No. 1060 dated 03.11.2011 (For Non-Matriculate in

the Pay Band of Rs.4400-7440 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1300/)

One candidate Shri Jontu Biswas was appointed as Non-

matriculate.

10. Subsequently, the appointment orders were modified vide Order

No.868 dated 04.08.2012 in compliance with the Hon'ble CAT's

Judgement Order dated 27.04.2012 passed in MA No.27/AN/2012

in OA.No. 78/AN/2005 (Prem Kumar & Ors-Vs-Lt. Governor & Ors)

and in pursuance of the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs, New

Delhi conveyed vide Deputy Secretary to the GOI's Letter No.U-

14014/18/2009-ANL dated 05.07.2012 and further conveyed vide

Assistant Secretary (Rev) letter No.2-9/2007/Rev (Vol.III) dated

10.07.2012, the appointment of the 41 Choudharies made vide

above said order were effected from 22.05.2007. The financial

benefits were also drawn and disbursed to the petitioner's w.e.f

22.05.2007.

13

11. Being aggrieved by the CAT’s order dated 27.04.2012, the petitioners

filed WPCT No. 14 of 2013 seeking all consequential benefits from

the date of initial appointment.

12. It was further contended that the petitioners were appointed against

supernumerary posts created in compliance with the CAT’s order

dated 22.05.2007 in OA No. 78/AN/2005. The CAT clarified, by

order dated 27.04.2012, that regularisation would take effect from

22.05.2007 with entitlement to consequential benefits only.

13. During pendency of WPCT No. 14 of 2013, the Hon’ble High Court,

by order dated 18.12.2013, directed the Administration to carry out

the order dated 22.05.2007 expeditiously. Consequently, the

Administration approached the MHA for the creation of regular posts

and framing of recruitment rules.

14. The applicants thereafter filed OA No. 351/384/2018 seeking

similar reliefs.

15. The learned Tribunal heard both sides on 02-05-2025 in its Circuit

Bench at Sri Vijaya Puram and disposed of the same by an Order

dated 18-06-2025 as under:-

“In the instant case, there is no doubt that the applicants

had been working in the department for a considerable

period and their job was perennial in nature. Therefore, we

are of the opinion that they should not be deprived of the

benefits granted to other similarly placed casual, part time

and as per the contractual employees aforementioned

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the

respondents are directed to consider the case of the

14

applicants in the light of the aforementioned judgments of

Hon'ble Apex Court and extend the consequential benefits to

them within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order”

16. The Respondents contended that the Applicants were regularised on

a Supernumerary post as per the approval conveyed by the GOI,

MHA in compliance of the CAT'S Order dated 22.05.2007. The

department neither has any such created post nor any RRs for the

post of Choudhary in the Revenue Department, so as to consider

their appointment from the initial date of appointment as

Choudhary, who were appointed on a part-time basis earlier.

17. The impugned order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the Learned

Tribunal, is totally bad in law and not sustainable in law and same

is liable to be set aside.

18. The impugned order dated 18-06-2025, passed by the learned

Tribunal is not in confirmative with the various judicial

pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby and where

under the Hon'ble Apex Court has highly deprecated the

regularization of persons engaged on part time basis. The learned

Tribunal ought to have considered the solemn direction of the

Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Secretary Karnataka & Ors -Vs-

Uma Devi & Ors

5

, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

categorically observed that regularisation of an individual is highly

5

(2006) 4 SCC 1

15

impermissible in the eyes of law, when the appointment is made

either by back door or without following the procedure of

recruitment and/or sanction. Finally, it has been submitted that the

case law cited by the learned Tribunal or the applicants has no

applicability in the instant case, and the impugned order was

passed only on the ground of sympathy and misconception; as such,

the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble

Court forthwith.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT

19. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions advanced

on behalf of the respective parties, and upon perusal of the record,

we find that the foundational facts are undisputed, that the

applicants were engaged long back. The applicants are seeking

regularisation from the date of initial appointment with

consequential benefits. From time to time, several matters pending

between the parties, travelled from one court to another, and

ultimately, it travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the

Respondents/Administration. The subject matter of the challenge

before the Supreme Court was an impugned order dated 5

th

September, 2007, passed by the Division Bench of this High Court

in WPCT No. 178 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the Division

Bench was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the

16

Administration and affirmed the Order impugned of the Learned

Tribunal passed vide its judgment and order dated 22.05,2007. The

observation of the Learned Tribunal was inter alia as follows:

“Hence, the OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider

in detail the entire functional responsibilities of Choudharies,

work out the total number of full time Choudhary accordingly

frame necessary recruitment rules, reflect therein the total

number of posts of Choudharies, and keeping in view the fact that

the applicants have been performing the duties of Choudharies,

for the past decade plus, consider the case of the applicants for

regularization as Choudharies. As the Rules are to be framed,

obviously, the same is a time consuming process and hence, a

period of eight months (from the date of communication of this is

calendared for complying with the above direction of the

Tribunal".

20. The Hon'ble High Court, sitting in Circuit Bench at Port Blair,

rejected the WPCT vide Judgment/Order dated 05/09/2007 with the

following direction:-

"In view of the Scheme of the said Regulation framed by the

government, we fail to appreciate the decisions of the Deputy

Commissioner that creation of regular posts of Chaudharis was

not justifiable at this juncture. The Central Administrative

Tribunal rightly held that there was no logic in the contention of

the administration that, due to modernization, there was no

work for the Chaudharis

The Writ application is, therefore, rejected. The order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal is affirmed".

17

21. The Respondents have already regularized the applicants with effect

from 22.05.2007. The financial benefits were also drawn and

disbursed to the Petitioner’s w.e.f. 22.05.2007, as they had admitted

that the functional responsibilities of Choudharies were perennial in

nature. The learned Tribunal had, vide order dated 12.07.1999,

directed the respondents to consider the creation of regular posts

and framing recruitment rules for Choudharies and to induct the

applicants.

22. As per the approval of the Competent Authority, 41 supernumerary

posts of Choudharies were created in the Pay Band-1 of Rs 5200-

20200 + GP Rs. 1800/- for matriculates and Pay Band-IS Rs 4440-

7440-GP Rs. 1300/- for non-matriculates purely on personal basis

for the affected individuals who would be regularized against these

posts as per the Court's Order. These posts would be abolished once

they fall vacant and will not be filled again. The regularisation will

take place with prospective effect. However, subsequently, the

appointment of the 41 Choudharies was made effective from

22.05.2007.

23. The applicants had also knocked the door of the learned Tribunal

and also the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench Sitting at

Port Blair) in connection with a Circular dated 29.02.2016 whereby

proposal was made to fill up the 18 vacant posts of Patwari (the

post immediately higher to that of Choudharies) in the Revenue

18

Department, Port Blair from amongst the overall sanctioned strength

of Amalgamated Clerical Cadre post of LGC/HGC under A&N

Administration on diverted capacity for a period of 6/12 months

(Annexure A/11). The Hon'ble High Court (Circuit Bench Sitting at

Port Blair) in CAN No.042 of 2016 (WPCT No.014 of 2013) vide Order

dated 30.03.2016 directed as follows:-

"In the said conspectus of facts it has been argued on behalf of

the petitioners that prior to framing of the Recruitment Rules for

the past of Choudharies the attempt of the respondents to fill up

the post of Patwari would be affecting the promotional channel of

the petitioners from the post of Choudhury to the post of Patwari.

We are of the opinion that the said issue as argued by Mr.

George cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage and the

petitioners would be at liberty to challenge such action of the

Administration before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in

accordance with law."

24. In the above backdrop, it is crystal clear from the conduct of the

respondents that they have not complied with the order of the

learned Tribunal passed on 22.05.2007 in letter and spirit.

25. While deciding the Original application, the Learned Tribunal relied

upon a recent judgment in the case of Sripal & Another Vs. Nagar

Nigam Ghaziabad in (Civil Appeal No.157 of 224) dated

31.01.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Court held that if an

employee works continuously without any break in a temporary

capacity for a long period, it means that his job is perennial in

nature, and such an employee cannot be denied regularisation

19

under the shield of the Judgment in Uma Devi (Supra), which

distinguishes between regular and irregular appointments. It was

further clarified in the said judgment that even irregular appointees

are eligible for regularization if they fulfil certain conditions. In

Sripal (Supra), several earlier judgments were also discussed,

which are as follows:-

i. Vinod Kamar and Others Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others

6

ii. Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others , 2024 SCC Online SC

3826, arising out of SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 etc., dated 20

December, 2024,

iii. Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi

7

26. It would be appropriate to deal with the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by a larger Bench in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others

8

with regard

to the issue of regularisation of service on the ground of continuing

service for a long period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the

said judgment that 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,

6

(2024)1 SCR 1230

7

(2006) 4 SCC 1.

8

(2006) 4 SCC 1

20

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.

27. Appointment made without following due process or the rules for

appointment did not confer any right on the appointee and that the

Court cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re-

engagement or making them permanent. However, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court also held that the cases where irregular

appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.

Narayanappa

9

, R.N. Nanjundappa

10

, and B.N. Nagarajan,

11

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 the Court in the cases above referred to and in

the light of the 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

9

(1967) 1 SCR 128

10

(1972) 1 SCC 409

11

(1979) 4 SCC 507

21

tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are

undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be

filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are

being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six

months from the date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 by

passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or

making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the

constitutional scheme.

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed 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; (2) there should be no further by passing of the

constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent,

those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme in the

case of Uma Devi (Supra).

29. The judgment relied by the applicants in the case of Jaggo v.

Union of India (supra), recognised the indispensable nature of

long-serving employees' work and condemned the misuse of

temporary employment labels for roles that are essential and

recurring. The judgment affirmed that even "irregular"

22

appointments, if not "illegal", warrant regularisation under the

principles established in the Uma Devi (Supra) case.

30. In Jaggo (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph

nos. 26, 27 and 28 as under: -

“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

23

labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal

challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair

employment practices, government institutions can reduce the

burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and

uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant

to embody. This approach aligns with international standards

and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,

thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices

in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are

allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the

Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to

the following extent:

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;

ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and

their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants

shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages

for the period they have not worked for but would be

entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the

same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.”

31. Upon careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear and

explicit that temporary, casual, or contractual employees of irregular

appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had

served continuously for a decade, should be considered for

regularisation.In the present case all applicants were engaged long

back in existing vacant posts.

24

32. In the present case, the petitioners’ service was regularised long

back but w.e.f 22.05.2007 without considering their initial

appointment date, even though they are entitled to regularisation

from the date of initial appointment, since they have been working

continuously without a break in service.

33. In the above backdrop, we conclude that the Learned Tribunal

should have directed the respondent to regularise their service from

the date of their initial appointment since their job was perennial in

nature and they have been working since 1996. Furthermore, the

Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition earlier filed by the

respondents / Administration. Therefore, the impugned Judgement

and order passed by the Learned Tribunal is hereby modified to the

extent that the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the

applicants and regularise their service from the date of initial

appointment and extend the consequential benefits to them within a

period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

34. As a result, the present writ petition, being WP.CT 48 of 2026 filed

by the petitioners is hereby allowed and WP.CT 60 of 2026 filed by

the respondents/Administration is hereby dismissed without order

as to costs.

35. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

25

36. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

37. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to

be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all legal

formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

38. I Agree.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)