Bombay High Court
SATKAR UJWALA LAXMAN AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners' irregular but not illegal temporary appointments, coupled with over twenty‑seven years of continuous service in sanctioned posts, merit regularisation and salary arrears.
Summary
The petitioners, twelve instructors at the Pimpri‑Chinchwad Industrial Training Institute, were appointed on a temporary basis from 1997‑1999 by resolution of the municipal corporation’s Standing Committee, before any service rules existed. Although the posts were later sanctioned, the corporation and the State refused to regularise their services, prompting a writ petition under Articles 16, 21 and 226 seeking permanency and salary arrears. The respondents argued that the appointments were merely contractual, irregular and could not be regularised without a fresh recruitment process. The Court examined the applicability of the Umadevi and Jaggo decisions, held that the appointments were irregular—not illegal—and that the petitioners had rendered continuous service for more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts. Consequently, the Court ordered regularisation from the date of sanction of the posts and awarded arrears for the last ten years, while disposing of the accompanying civil application.
Issues considered
- The legal effect of temporary appointments made by municipal corporation resolutions before service rules existed
- Whether long continuous service of over ten years creates a right to regularisation under the Umadevi principle
- Whether the petitioners' appointments were illegal or merely irregular
- Whether the State can lawfully deny regularisation and salary arrears despite the petitioners’ qualifications and service
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to arrears of salary from the date of sanction or from a later date
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — s. 53
Subjects
- regularisation
- temporary appointment
- industrial training institute
- municipal corporation
- service rules
- constitutional articles 16,21,226
- long service
- irregular appointment
- backdoor entry
- salary arrears
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:40465-DB
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2566 OF 2005
1. Mrs. Satkar Ujwala Laxman, age 32 yrs
(Electronics Mechanic Instructor)
C/o. Desai R.S., R.H. 93,
Gandharva Park,
B-1/12, Shahu Nagar,
Chinchwad,
Pune 411 019.
2. Mr. Kalokhe Vikramsinh Vasant, age 28 yrs
(Draughtsman Mechanical Instructor),
At Kalokhe Mala, Post Dehu,
Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune,
Pin. 412 109.
3. Mr. Tathe Shahaji Pandurang, age 31 yrs
(Sheet Metal Worker Instructor),
Dhawade Vasti, Shiv Ganesh Nagar,
Kondiba Landge Marg, Bhosari,
Pune 411 039.
4. Mr. Bandgar Laxman Dnyandeo, age 35 yrs
(Mechanic Motor Vehicle, Instructor),
Flat No.B-11, Monika Teacher Hsg. Soc.,
Pimprigaon,
Pune 411 017.
5. Mr. Landge Nilesh Khushalchand,
(Turner Instructor),
Survey No.679, Landewadi,
Bhosari,
Pune 411 039.
6. Mr. Dudhal Bhanudas Dharmaji, age 36 yrs
(Painter General Instructor),
W Sector, W/B, 4/11, Room No.203,
1
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
Ajmera Complex, Morwadi,
Pimpri,
Pune 411 018.
7. Mr. Borse Vrundavani Bansilal, age 28 yrs
(Electronics Mechanic/
Social Studies Instructor),
Atmanagar Hsg. Society,
‘H’ Building, Flat No.402,
Pimpri,
Pune 411 018.
8. Mr. Khadbade Rajesh Narshingrao, age 32 yrs
(Wireman Instructor),
B-1, Omkar Swarup, Omkar Colony,
Vijay Nagar, Kalewadi,
Pune 411 017.
9. Mrs. Jadhav Seema Yashawant, age 35 yrs
(Engineering Drawing Instructor),
B-55, H. A. Colony, Pimpri,
Pune 411 017.
10. Mr. Shinde Prakash Shivaji, age 41 yrs
(Workshop Calculation &
Science Instructor),
R.H. B-2/13, Near Datta Mandir,
Ruston Colony, Chinchwad,
Pune 411 033.
11. Mr. Gawde Kisan Dattatraya, age 38 yrs
(Plumber Instructor),
Gawde-Bhoir Ali, Morya Niwas,
Chinchwadgaon,
Pune 411 033.
12. Rayate Vinayak Pandit, age 37 yrs.
(Computer Operator and Programming
2
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
Assistant Instructor),
Prerana Hsg. Society,
Flat No.06, M.I.D.C.,
‘G’ Block, Sambhaji Nagar,
Chinchwad,
Pune 411 019. … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Municipal Development Division
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Municipal Commissioner,
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
Pimpri,
Pune 411 018.
3. The Principal,
Industrial Training Centre,
Morwadi, Pimpri,
Pune 411 018. .… Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1641 OF 2012
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2566 OF 2005
1. Mrs. Ujwala Laxman Satkar
C/o. R. S. Desai,
R. H. 93, Gandharva Park,
B – 1/12, Shahu Nagar,
CHINCHWAD,
PUNE : 411 019.
2. Mr. Vikramsinh Vasant Kalokhe
At : Kalokhe Mala,
Post : Dehu
TAL. : HAVELI
3
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
DIST. : PUNE
PIN CODE NO. : 412 109.
3. Mr. Shahaji Pandurang Tathe
Dhawade Vasti,
Shiv Ganesh Nagar,
Kondiba Landge Marg, BHOSARI,
PUNE : 411 039.
4. Mr. Nilesh Khushalchand Landge
Survey No. : 679, Landewadi,
BHOSARI,
PUNE : 411 039.
5. Mr. Bhanudas Dharmaji Dhudhal
W Sector, W/B, 4/11,
Room No.203, Ajmera Complex,
Morwadi,
PIMPRI,
PUNE : 411 018.
6. Mr. Vrundavani Bansilal Borse
Atmanagar Hsg. Soc.,
‘H’ Building, Flat No.402,
Morwadi,
PIMPRI,
PUNE : 411 018.
7. Mr. Rajesh Narsingrao Khadbade
B – 1, Omkar Swarup,
Omkar Colony, Vijay Nagar,
KALEWADI,
PUNE : 411 017.
8. Mrs. Seema Yashwant Jadhav
B – 55, H. A. Colony,
PIMPRI,
PUNE : 411 017.
4
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
9. Mr. Prakash Shivaji Shinde
R.H. B – 2/13,
Near Datta Mandir, Ruston Colony,
CHINCHWAD,
PUNE : 411 033.
10. Mr. Kisan Dattatraya Gawde
Gawde – Bhoir Ali,
Moraya Niwas,
CHINCHWAD,
PUNE : 411 033. … Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Municipal Development Division,
Mantralaya,
MUMBAI : 400 032
2. The Municipal Commissioner
Pimpri – Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
Pimpri,
PUNE : 411 018.
3. The Principal
Industrial Training Centre,
Morwadi,
Pimpri,
PUNE : 411 018. …. Respondents
****
Adv. Nitin Kulkarni, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. G. H. Keluskar, for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP, for
respondent No.1-State.
****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026
5
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. The petitioners by this writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seek the following substantive
relief :-
“(a) This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to exercise
the jurisdiction under Articles 16, 21 and 226 of the
Constitution of India and may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, Order or a direction directing the
Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners and
make them permanent after completion of their one years’
services and the Respondents may be directed to extend the
benefits of permanency and the regular pay scale to the
Petitioners from the date of completion of one years’ service
with the Respondents, they will be made permanent by the
Respondent.”
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners
12 in number are in the employment of respondent Nos.2
and 3-Corporation from the year 1997 onwards on the
consolidated salary of Rs.2,500/- and they are getting at present
the consolidated salary of Rs.52,094/-. The petitioners are working
as Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute formed by
respondent Nos.2 and 3. The main object of the Institute is to
impart industrial training to the students throughout Maharashtra.
3. It is the petitioners’ case that they were recruited by
6
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
respondent No.2 – Corporation by following the due procedure
and after a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee.
The petitioners possess the requisite educational qualifications.
Despite the vacant posts with the respondent Nos.2 and 3, their
services were not regularised, and since there is discrimination
between the salary of the petitioners and the regular instructors,
the petitioners filed this writ petition on 11 th April 2005. This writ
petition came to be admitted on 13th July 2005. Interim relief in
terms of prayer clause (c) was granted reading thus :-
“(c) pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition the
Respondents may be restrained from terminating the services
of the Petitioners or the Respondents may be directed to
maintain the status-quo in relation of the Petitioners till the
disposal of this Petition.”
4. The petitioners were selected and then appointed
between the period 1997 to 1999 by various appointment orders
which are at pages 22 to 44 of the writ petition. The petitioners at
the time of appointment were paid consolidated wages of
Rs.2,500/-. It is the petitioners’ contention that the petitioners’
consolidated wages have now increased to Rs.52,094/- whereas
the permanent Instructor was at the relevant time getting a pay
7
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
scale of Rs.6500-200-900, today is getting a salary in the pay scale
of Rs.86,000/- + 30% HRA and other allowances totalling
Rs.1,64,976/-. 48 posts were sanctioned at the relevant time. As
of today, 33 posts are vacant out of the 67 posts which are now
sanctioned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the
relevant time the service conditions of the employees were never
governed by any Rules and, in fact the Rules pertaining to the
service conditions of the employees were framed for the first time
by the Corporation and published in the Official Gazette on 18 th
February 2020, which became enforceable with effect from 18th
February 2020. The appointments were made in accordance with
the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949 (“the said Act of 1949”, for short). Learned
counsel submitted that according to Section 53 of the said Act of
1949, the Standing Committee by a resolution can make
appointments. The Standing Committee had passed the resolutions
from time to time, and the resolutions were also passed in the
general body meetings of the Corporation. Learned counsel
8
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
submitted that merely because the appointment orders specify the
particular period, the regularisation cannot be denied. Based on
the resolution of the Corporation, since the appointment orders
were issued by the Commissioner, the same have to be regarded as
valid orders.
6. The respondent No.3 institute was established in 1991.
The General Body of the Corporation in the year 2005 passed a
resolution that the petitioners have been working since 1997,
therefore they should be regularised. The respondents also made
correspondence with the Government on 31st May 2005 for
regularisation of their services. The respondent No.1 sanctioned
the posts on 30th July 2009. Thus, it is submitted that now there
are sanctioned posts on which the petitioners can be regularised.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others1 to
contend that temporary employments are nothing but exploitation.
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shripal and others vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2 and also
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
9
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
in Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others3.
7. Mr. Kiran Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for respondent
Nos.2 and 3 invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the Corporation. It is submitted by learned Senior
Advocate that the petitioners were appointed from time to time on
a temporary basis on the said posts which were not at all
permanent posts and it was made clear in the appointment orders
issued to them. After accepting all the terms and conditions stated
in the appointment orders, the petitioners had accepted temporary
appointments from time to time. As per the admitted position at
the time of appointment of the petitioners, there were no
sanctioned posts in the establishment of respondent No.3. It is
further contended that the petitioners were not appointed after
following the due process contemplated in public employment.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others 4
in support of the settled position of law that the person who is not
appointed on a regular basis cannot claim permanency through a
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
4 (2006) 4 SCC 1
10
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
backdoor attempt, bypassing the claim of the regular employees
appointed by observing all the rules and regulations of permanent
recruitment. The petitioners have been continued in service only
under the orders of the Court, initially under the orders of the
Industrial Court and later as per the interim order passed by this
Court. It is further submitted that granting regularisation to the
petitioners would adversely affect the seniority of the employees
appointed by following due process of law. Mr. Bapat therefore
was at pains to point out that since the entry of the petitioners into
the service is a backdoor one, the petitioners cannot claim
regularisation bypassing the claim of regular employees appointed
by observing all the rules and regulations of permanent
recruitment.
8. Mr. A. I. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader on
behalf of the State, made the following submissions. The
appointment of the petitioners was on a purely temporary basis on
posts which were not sanctioned for a limited period or till regular
appointments are made, whichever is earlier. The said
appointments were made without following Recruitment Rules
11
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
and policy governing employment in State. Reliance is placed on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Umarani vs.
Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others5 to contend that
appointments made in contravention of the mandatory provisions
of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and in ignorance
of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be
regularised by the State. Reliance is also placed on the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal vs. State
of Rajasthan6 to contend that continued extension orders could not
lead to a presumption of the grant of concurrence by the Public
Service Commission and that unless the initial recruitment is
regularised through a prescribed agency, the incumbent cannot be
granted regularisation. It is submitted that in the present case the
Corporation has not followed the prescribed recruitment process
and therefore the said appointments are illegal and backdoor
without following due process. It is contended by Mr. Patel that
long continuation in service under orders of the Industrial Court
and this Court does not give any right to continue in service or for
5 (2004) 7 SCC 112
6 (2003) 3 SCC 485
12
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
regularisation in service. It is submitted that in the year 2009,
when the respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued an advertisement, the
petitioners should have opted to participate in the regular
recruitment process. The petitioners were not appointed through
the regular recruitment process and when opportunity came, they
did not participate in the regular recruitment process. The State
Government has in such circumstances, rejected the proposal made
by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for regularisation of the services of
the petitioners. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners are
not entitled to any relief of regularisation in service only on the
basis of their continuation in service under orders of the Industrial
Court or this Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
at length. We have perused the pleadings and the materials on
record.
10. The petitioners were appointed on a temporary basis in
the year 1997. At the relevant time there were no sanctioned
posts. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working
13
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
since the year 1997/1999 and as of this date they are in service for
almost 29/27 years. An affidavit in sur re-joinder on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been filed wherein it is stated that the
petitioners were appointed in terms of the resolutions passed by
the Standing Committee of the Corporation. The resolutions were
passed in exigencies at the relevant time. At the time of
appointment of the petitioners, the Municipal Corporation had not
prepared service conditions and service rules for its employees,
therefore Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981 were adopted by
the Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has made applicable
the service rules of the State Government to its employees vide
Resolution No.8 dated 4th January 1983 with appropriate
modifications and till the process of preparing separate service
rules for employees of the Municipal Corporation is completed. It
is thus the stand of the respondent – Corporation that the
appointments were on an ad-hoc basis and till the tenure
enumerated therein. The appointment orders clearly indicated that
the same were till the candidates were selected and appointed
through regular process. It is the stand of the respondents that
14
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
neither any advertisement was published nor the petitioners
competed with anyone while the appointments were made in
exigencies.
11. It is thus seen that at the relevant time of appointment
the service conditions of the employees were never governed by
the Rules framed by the Corporation and the Rules pertaining to
the service conditions of the employees were framed for the first
time by the Corporation on 18th February 2020. One thing is clear
that the appointments were made due to exigencies of the
Corporation. The contention that the petitioners are duly qualified
to be appointed is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that
the posts are sanctioned posts and the same are vacant, on which
the petitioners can be regularised if they succeed.
12. In the present case, what is significant is that the
appointments were made after a resolution was passed by the
Standing Committee due to exigencies of service. It is not denied
that the general body of the Corporation passed a resolution in the
year 2005 that since the petitioners have been working since 1997,
15
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
they should be regularised. In fact, the Corporation admits that
vide its representation dated 31st May 2005, it had sought
permission from the government for regularising the services of
the petitioners. The government by its communication dated 19th
October 2005, declined such request. Therefore, one thing is clear
that the Corporation which had appointed the petitioners in view
of the exigencies of service wanted to regularise the services of the
petitioners. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are not inclined to
agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents
that the appointments are illegal appointments. The Standing
Committee had passed a resolution to appoint the petitioners on a
temporary basis on temporary posts which at the relevant time
were not sanctioned. The posts were sanctioned later on. There are
posts available where the petitioners can be accommodated.
13. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision
of this Court in Vandana Narsing Chinchwade and others vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.11651 of 2016
decided on 22nd January 2018. This judgment needs to be
reproduced in extenso. The relevant portion reads thus :-
16
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
“2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing at the
admission stage.
3. The Petitioners who are functioning as an instructors in the
Industrial Training Institute (ITI) operated by Respondent No.2-
Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika have approached this
Court seeking directions against the Respondents regularize
their services confirming permanency on them on the date of
sanction of the posts by the Government on 30.7.2009. The
Petitioners are also seeking directions to the Respondents to pay
the arrears of salary w.e.f. 30.7.2009 in the prescribed pay
scales by making applicable to pay-scales prescribed for the
posts. The Petitioners hold requisite qualification prescribed for
the post of the Instructors. Respondent No.2 in pursuance of the
advertisement published in daily "Lokmat", "Samna" and
"Pudhari" called the applications for making the appointments
as an Instructors in Respondent No.3-Institute. In pursuance of
the advertisement the Petitioners tendered their applications
and participated in the process of selection. The selection
committee was comprising of Principal, Chief Auditor, Assistant
Commissioner, Education Officer and Additional Commissioner.
The Petitioners were called upon to appear before the Selection
Committee for the purpose of interview. After holding
interviews, the Petitioners were found to be eligible and have
been issued the letters of appointment in the month of June
2006. The Petitioners claim that they are functioning as an
Instructors in Respondent No.3-Institute since 29.6.2006
continuously without any actual break and without any
intervention of Court. According to the Petitioners, Section
53(3) of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,
1949 (for short, "the Act") empowers the Commissioner to make
temporary appointment for six months with the previous
sanction of the standing committee. It is further contended that
in view of the powers conferred upon Respondent No.2, the
Standing Committee passed a resolution empowering the
Commissioner to appoint the Petitioners. Considering the
resolution of the Standing Committee empowering the
Commissioner to make the appointment, the Petitioners have
been appointed to the post of Instructors. The Petitioners also
contend that Respondent No.2 while making appointments has
followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 2, Chapter III of the
Act. The Petitioners thus contend that their induction in the
17
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
employment is in view of the due procedure prescribed in that
behalf. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the State
Government has also accorded the sanction to the posts in
pursuance to the proposal tendered by the Municipal
Corporation w.e.f. 30th July, 2009. The Petitioners are
functioning since the date of their appointment i.e. since June
2006 till this date without any interruption in service. It is the
contention of the Petitioners that the posts held by them are
permanent in character, the work assigned to them is not
temporary and is of a permanent nature and there is no denial
to this aspect on behalf of the Respondents. Respondent No.2 is
operating Industrial Training Institute since 2006 continuously.
The nature of the employment of the Petitioners have to be
considered to be of a permanent character. It also cannot be
controverted that their appointments have been made without
observing the procedure prescribed in that behalf. The request
made by the Petitioners is objected by the Respondents on the
second ground that the Petitioners have not been appointed as a
permanent employee and that the order of appointment is itself
mentioned that their appointments shall be on contract basis
and for a particular period and the remuneration received by
them is a fixed sum. Learned advocate appearing for the
Petitioners contend that the Municipal Corporation in spite of
sanction of the posts accorded by the State Government in 2009
has failed to regularize the services of the Petitioners. It is not
the matter of denial that the posts sanctioned by the State
Government which are of a permanent character have not been
filled in by the Municipal Corporation and these posts are
occupied by the Petitioners. The Petitioners are thus occupying
permanent posts duly sanctioned by the State Government
though their initial appointment is for a temporary duration. It
also cannot be controverted that the Petitioners have been
granted continuation for a period more than 12 years since the
date of initial appointment. It also shall be noted that the
General Body of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
in its meeting dated 20.10.2010 has resolved to regularize the
services of the Petitioners since they have been appointed in
observance of the procedure prescribed in that behalf and the
posts held by them are of a permanent nature. The Municipal
Corporation, however, has not complied with the resolution and
has not implemented the resolution passed in General Body
meeting and kept the Petitioners temporary. The Petitioners are
being paid a fixed sum and not the monthly salary in the
18
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
prescribed pay scales under the relevant regulation prescribed
by the State Government. It is the responsibility of Respondent
No.2 to pay the wages to the employees in the prescribed pay
scales in observation of the regulations prescribed by the State
Government in that behalf. The Municipal Corporation has
committed an illegality in refusing to pay the monthly
remuneration to the Petitioners in the prescribed pay scales and
refusing to grant permanency to them in spite of resolution
passed by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation and in
spite of sanction of the posts by the State Government way back
in 2009.
4. It cannot be contended that since the initial and
appointment of the Petitioners itself is for a prescribed duration,
the Petitioners are not entitled to claim permanency. Learned
advocate appearing for the Respondents has placed reliance on
the judgment in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi
& Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC page 1 and contended that it
would be illegal to regularize the services of the Petitioners
whose appointment shall be construed as a back door entry.
The contention raised by the Respondents is devoid of
substance for the reason that in view of the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of S. V. Narayanappa, R. N.
Nanjundappa and B. N. Nagarjan reported in AIR 1967 (1) SCR
128, 1972 (1) SCC 409 and 1979 (4) SCC 507, the appointment
of the employees can be termed as an irregularity and not
illegality.
5. In view of the Judgments referred to above the question of
regularization of services of such employees can be considered
in the light of the proposition settled by the Supreme Court in
the cases referred to above. Thus the direction issued by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (supra) to the State
Government and their instrumentalities that they should take
steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of orders
of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned
posts that require to be filled up, in case where temporary
employees are being now employed also shall be adhered. The
process ought to have been set in motion within six months
from the date of judgment in Umadevi. It shall be appropriate
to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in the
19
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
matter of the State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L.Kesari & Ors.
reported in 2010(9) SCC 247, wherein the Supreme Court has
analyzed the directions issued earlier in the matter of Umadevi
and have observed in paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 as quoted below:
“4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was
rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In
that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that
appointments made without following the due process or
the rules relating to appointment did not confer any
right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their
absorption, regularization or re-engagement nor make
their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise
of Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the
recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms
of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be
careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with
the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or
its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be
instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further
held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-
wage employee does not have a legal right to be made
permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the
relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. This Court however made one
exception to the above position and the same is extracted
below:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may
be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967
(1) SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409]
and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to
in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services
of such employees may have to be considered on merits
in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment.
20
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take
steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken
to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process must be set
in motion within six months from this date. ….”
5. It is evident from the above that there is an
exception to the general principles against
‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following
conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10
years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit
or protection of the interim order of any court or
tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its
instrumentality should have employed the employee and
continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for
more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be
illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not
made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the
persons appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will be
considered to be illegal. But where the person employed
possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working
against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without
undergoing the process of open competitive selection,
such appointments are considered to be irregular.
Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government or instrumentality, to take steps to
regularize the services of those irregularly appointed
employees who had served for more than ten years
without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of
courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi,
directed that such one-time measure must be set in
motion within six months from the date of its decision
21
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
(rendered on 10.4.2006).
6. ……….
7. ……….
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of
Umadevi is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who
have put in more than ten years of continuous service
without the protection of any interim orders of courts or
tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was
rendered, are considered for regularization in view of
their long service. Second is to ensure that the
departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the
practice of employing persons on
daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then
periodically regularize them on the ground that they
have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating
the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to
recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the
direction is that all persons who have worked for more
than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in
Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of
any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the
requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for
regularization. The fact that the employer has not
undertaken such exercise of regularization within six
months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise
was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not
disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for
regularization in terms of the above directions in
Umadevi as a one-time measure.”
6. In the instant matter, it is not a matter of dispute that the
employees have worked for more than 10 years in duly
sanctioned posts without benefits or protection of the Courts or
Tribunal and as such, though their appointment on the posts
can be termed as irregularity needs to be regularized. The
appointment of the Petitioners cannot termed as an illegal since
they have been appointed in observance of the procedure
prescribed in that behalf by a duly constituted committee and
have been continued in the employment for a period more than
10 years on a duly sanctioned posts. It was thus the
responsibility of the Municipal Corporation to regularize the
22
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
services of the Petitioners and pay them the wages as applicable
to the posts of the instructors as prescribed by the State
Government under relevant Rules.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the Writ Petition deserves
to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
8. The Respondents are directed to regularize the services of
the Petitioners from the date of sanction of the posts by the
State Government i.e. 30.7.2009 onwards. The necessary orders
shall be issued forthwith. The Respondents are shall also pay
the regular salary in the prescribed pay scales excluding the
amount already paid to them as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The
arrears of salary excluding the amount already paid to the
Petitioners in the prescribed pay scales shall be paid from
30.7.2009 till now within the time stipulated as above.
9. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.”
14. In our opinion, even the petitioners’ case needs to be
looked at favourably considering the decision of this Court in
Vandana Narsing Chinchwade and others (supra) where facts
situation was somewhat similar. It is further significant to mention
that the challenge by the Corporation to the decision in Vandana
Narsing Chinchwade and others (supra) by way of Special Leave
Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed vide
order dated 13th August 2018.
15. According to us, what really clinches the issue is the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra).
23
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
The observations of Their Lordships in the following paragraphs is
extremely significant. The relevant paragraphs viz. Paragraphs 10,
11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 read thus :-
“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.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in
performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-
to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water
Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis,
were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a
conducive working environment within the office premises.
Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors,
workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that
directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the
CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional
functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical
maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor
premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
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.
24
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
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 v. Union of India, it was held that
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
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
25
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the
present case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label
of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision
taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface
labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any
mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light,
refusing regularization simply because their original terms did
not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness
and equity.
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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which
India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for
employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The
ILO’s Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and social security.
It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in
promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where
job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example
from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of
26
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In
this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these
workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were
entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the
practice of hiring temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee
benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment
underscores the principle that the nature of the work
performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the corresponding rights and
benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
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 labeled as “temporary” or
“contractual”, even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• 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
27
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees
are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when
their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects
them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of
illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
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
28
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.”
16. In the present case, it is seen that when the Corporation
was in need of the services of the petitioners, by a resolution
passed by the Standing Committee under the provisions of the said
Act of 1949, the petitioners were appointed to work on a
temporary basis on temporary posts. The petitioners are working
as Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute formed by
respondent No.2. The main object of the Institute is to impart
industrial training to the students throughout Maharashtra. Later
on, the posts were sanctioned. There is no dispute that the
petitioners are duly qualified. After the posts came to be
sanctioned, it is the Corporation which had submitted a proposal
for regularising the services of these 12 petitioners against the
sanctioned posts. The Corporation has kept these number of posts
vacant even today and filled up the remaining ones by the regular
29
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
process of appointment. The petitioners are working as against
these sanctioned posts, the label given to them is temporary or
continuing under the orders of this Court. Thus, so far as these
petitioners are concerned, they can easily be accommodated in the
sanctioned vacant posts which are very much available. The
petitioners have discharged the duties all these years sincerely as
against these sanctioned vacant posts. It would be a different
matter had these sanctioned posts been filled up, and in addition
the petitioners were to seek regularisation despite absence of
sanctioned vacant posts. The Corporation has taken work from the
petitioners. Thus it cannot be said that there is any added burden,
financial or otherwise on the Corporation. For the work the
petitioners have performed, they must be compensated in the same
terms as their counterparts who are discharging the same duties
but were regularly appointed. The contention that the
appointment is irregular can very well be balanced in the peculiar
facts by restricting the quantum of arrears.
17. The petitioners have worked continuously from the year
30
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
1997/1999 onwards. The petitioners have been discharging their
roles as Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute, imparting
industrial training to the students, and there is nothing on record
to indicate that the petitioners’ services have been unsatisfactory.
The petitioners have now worked for a period ranging between 27
to 29 years on a consolidated pay, which is much lesser compared
to the consolidated salary the regular employees are getting in the
pay scale prescribed, for the very same duties and work the
petitioners are discharging. No doubt the petitioners have
continued from the year 2005 onwards under the orders of this
Court. The fact remains that till then the petitioners worked for a
number of years continuously on a temporary basis as even the
Corporation had submitted the proposal to the State Government
for appointing the petitioners on a permanent basis in the
sanctioned posts which were then available. The State Government
and the Corporation are model employers. The petitioners deserve
to be treated fairly. Depriving them the benefits of regularisation
of service at this juncture would be travesty of justice.
18. It is in these circumstances we are of the considered
31
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
opinion that the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be
said to be illegal appointment. We have no hesitation in borrowing
the observations of Their Lordships in Jaggo (supra) in extenso to
support the view that we take, so also to distinguish the decision in
Umadevi and others (supra) and other decisions relied by learned
counsel for the respondents.
19. Moreover, in respect of employees who were somewhat
similarly situated as the present petitioners, this Court has in
Vandana Narsing Chinchwade and others (supra) granted the
relief of regularisation to the petitioners therein.
20. In the facts of this case, merely because the petitioners
continued in the employment under the orders of this Court should
not be a factor to deprive them the benefits of regularisation.
21. The upshot of the discussion is as under :-
(A) The petitioners were appointed due to the exigencies of
work as pleaded by the Corporation. At the relevant time the
Recruitment Rules for the said posts were not framed. Therefore,
even as per the Corporation’s own showing, the appointments
were made pursuant to the resolution passed by the Standing
32
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
Committee. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners who were
appointed as Instructors and were duly qualified at the relevant
time of their appointment, were appointed because of the
exigencies and need of the Corporation. In fact at the relevant time
the posts were temporary posts. After the posts were sanctioned,
no doubt the posts should be filled up by a regular recruitment
process. The petitioners were continued and in fact in the year
2005 a proposal was moved for regularising the services of the
petitioners in the sanctioned vacant posts. Thus, from this it is seen
that even the Corporation realised that the petitioners who were
appointed due to the exigencies of the Corporation, deserved to be
regularised.
(B) The State Government did not approve the proposal as
according to the State Government the sanctioned posts should be
filled in through the regular process of recruitment by giving an
opportunity to everyone interested in applying and all this with a
view to prohibit backdoor entry. This approach of the State
Government may well be in accordance with the settled principles
of recruitment process. However, the State Government could well
33
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
have considered the peculiar facts of this case as the petitioners
worked as Instructors in temporary posts when the respondent
No.3 needed them most and in the absence of sanctioned posts.
(C) The petitioners are duly qualified and having put in some
number of years in the said posts, the proposal of the Corporation
seeking regularisation of services of the petitioners should have
been looked at pragmatically. The petitioners have now continued
for more than 27 years, no doubt under the interim orders of this
Court, but in our opinion the overall facts of the case, the
resolution of the Standing Committee initially appointing the
petitioners in the temporary posts and then submitting a proposal
approved by the Corporation for regularisation after the posts were
sanctioned, are circumstances, which in our opinion must weigh in
favour of the petitioners.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that
petitioners be granted arrears of salary from the date of their
initial appointment or at least from the date when the posts came
to be sanctioned. Mr. Kiran Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for the
Corporation, submitted that granting arrears from the date when
34
Bhogale 6.wp-2566-2005.doc
the posts were sanctioned will place a heavy financial burden on
the Corporation, moreover as the State Government had refused to
approve the proposal submitted by the Corporation as far back in
the year 2005 for regularisation of the petitioners. In the peculiar
facts we are not inclined to grant salary from the date of
sanctioning of the posts; however, we are of the opinion that ends
of justice would be met if the arrears of salary in the pay scale are
paid to the petitioners for the past ten years.
23. We are therefore inclined to allow this writ petition in
terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the following modification :-
(i) The petitioners shall be entitled to
regularisation, permanency and consequential benefits
from the date of sanctioning of the posts. The arrears of
salary be granted with effect from 1st October 2016, that
is for the last ten years. The arrears be paid to the
petitioners within a period of one year from today.
24. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
25. The civil application is also disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale 35
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/10/2026 15:11:50
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.