Bombay High Court
VEENA SANKET SAWANTversusTHE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI DEP.OF ATOMIC ENERGY CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN BASIC SCIENCES (UM-DAE CEBS)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioners’ services shall not be disturbed and they are to be regularised in the newly created posts.
Summary
The petitioners, long‑serving non‑teaching staff of the University of Mumbai’s Department of Atomic Energy Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences, challenged an advertisement to outsource their posts via a GeM tender after their contractual terms ended on 30 September 2025. They argued that their service of 14‑18 years on perennial duties created a substantive right to regularisation, and that the employer’s delay in creating sanctioned posts was arbitrary. The respondents contended the posts were contractual and that new sanctioned posts would be filled through a fresh recruitment process. The Court examined precedents such as Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, emphasizing that perennial work cannot be perpetually outsourced and that denial of regularisation is arbitrary. It held that the petitioners’ services must not be disturbed and directed the Union of India to create and regularise the petitioners in the newly sanctioned posts within two months. The interim applications were dismissed and the petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- The legality of outsourcing contractual posts performing perennial duties after long continuous service.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularisation despite the absence of formally sanctioned posts.
- The arbitrariness of the employer’s delay in creating sanctioned posts and reliance on contractual labels.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974
Subjects
- regularisation
- contractual employees
- outsourcing
- ad‑hocism
- perennial duties
- constitutional employer
- equality
- administrative law
- service tenure
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.08.18
17:58:01
+0530 14.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4198 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15545 OF 2026
Rupali Arjun Shringare ...Petitioner
Versus
The University of Mumbai- Department of
Automic Energy Centre for Excellence in
Basic Science (UM-DAE CEBS) & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4094 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15621 OF 2026
Veena Sanket Sawant. ...Petitioner
Versus
The University of Mumbai- Department of
Automic Energy Centre for Excellence in
Basic Science (UM-DAE CEBS) & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4162 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15498 OF 2026
Vaishali Manoj Kedar ...Petitioner
Versus
The University of Mumbai- Department of
Automic Energy Centre for Excellence in
Basic Science (UM-DAE CEBS) & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4944 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.14980 OF 2026
Swati Vikas Kolekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The University of Mumbai- Department of
Automic Energy Centre for Excellence in
Basic Science (UM-DAE CEBS) & Ors. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4190 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15613 OF 2026
Neha Prakash Dhandekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The University of Mumbai- Department of
Automic Energy Centre for Excellence in
Basic Science (UM-DAE CEBS) & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Akshay R. Pai a/w Siddhi Bhosale, Mr. Avadhut V. Patil, Mr. Rishab
Shanbagh i/b Bina R. Pai for Petitioners
Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Ms. Gauri Raghuwanshi for R. No. 1 & 2
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mohd. Monis, Jainendra Sheth for R. No. 3
Smt. Nazia Shaikh, AGP for State in WP/4190/2025 and WP/4198/2025
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for State in WP/4094/2025
Mr. Akshay Patkar, AGP for State in WP/4162/2025
Smt. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for State in WP/4944/2025
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 11 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is a batch of five
petitions in which the petitioners contend that they are serving with respondent
No.1 on different posts namely Senior Office Superintendent (Administration),
Senior Office Superintendent (Finance), Office Superintendent (Administration),
Office Superintendent (Finance), Office Assistant (Purchase & Stores). A chart is
submitted by the petitioners reflecting the details of the petitioners namely
‘tenure of the service so far enjoyed by the petitioners in the service of respondent
No.1’ etc.
Page 2 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
Sr. Name of Date of Original Present Post Eligible General profile
No. Petitioner joining Appointed Post Sanctioned post of Sanctioned
post
1 Swati Kolekar 01/10/2007 Office Sr.Office Registrar (1)/ Overall
(WP 4944/2025) (18Y 9M) Superintendent Superintendent Administrative Administration
(Admin) Officer -III of the Centre;
(1) establishment
matters;
coordination
with Governing
Council,
Academic
Bodies and
Government
agencies; policy
matters;
administrative
compliance; and
RTI Matters
supervision of
administrative,
finance and
academic
support
functions.
2 Rupali Shringare 01/08/2009 Office Sr. Office Deputy Overall
(WP/4198/2025) (16Y 10M) Superintendent Superintendent Controller of supervision of
(Finance) Accounts (1) finance and
accounts;
budget
preparation and
monitoring;
grant
management,
finalization of
accounts; audit
coordination;
financial
reporting;
monitoring of
procurement
and payment
processes.
3 Vaishali Kedar 28/12/2007 Junior Clerk Office Administrative Handling
(WP/4162/2025) (18Y 6M) Superintendent Officer-III/Assi administrative
(Admin) stant (1) and
establishment
work;
correspondence;
maintenance of
records and
files;
procurement
assistance; data
compilation ;
coordination
with internal
and external
stakeholders;
4 Neha Dandekar 18/10/2010 Office Office Assistant Process of bills
(WP/4190/2025) (15Y 10M) Superintendent Superintendent Accounts and payments;
(Finance) (Finance) Officer (1) maintenance of
accounts;
preparation of
Page 3 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
vouchers and
financial
statements;
reconciliation of
accounts;
taxation;
assistance in
budget and
audit work
5 Veena Sawant 29/11/2011 Office Office Assistant Assistant Procurement
(WP/4094/2025) (14Y 7M) Assistant (Purchase & Personnel and stores
(Purchase & Stores) Officer (1) management;
Stores) contract and
service matters;
maintenance of
records;
coordination of
institutional
activities and
support
services;
supervision of
administrative
staff.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court apprehending that their
services are likely to be discontinued in view of the advertisement issued by
respondent No.1 dated 10 September 2025 so as to outsource the said posts. The
contention of the petitioners is that, they have been serving for long duration as
seen from Column no.2 which is between fourteen years to eighteen years on the
said posts, and despite the regular work being available which needs to be
discharged perennially, respondent no.1 has not taken any action to create such
posts so as to regularize the petitioners’ services.
3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a detailed order dated 1 October
2025 while granting ad-interim protection to the petitioners, made the following
observations:
“1. The Petitioners before us are two ladies who are 47 years and 35
years of age, respectively. The first Petitioner has been working for more than
16 years as “Senior Office Superintendent – Finance”. The second Petitioner is
working for 14 years as “Office Assistant – Purchase and Stores”.
Page 4 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
2. Respondent No.1, the University of Mumbai, operates the
Department of Atomic Energy Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences (UM–
DAE CEBS), which is an aided Institute and a Society registered under the
Maharashtra Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, for
conducting an educational course in the campus of the University of Mumbai.
Both Petitioners are in the non-teaching staff category. The Union of India
funds the scheme through the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of
India.
3. The Petitioners have approached this Court in view of the oral
instructions issued by Respondent No.1 that they need not report for duties
with effect from 1st October, 2025 since their contract of employment,
effective from 1st April, 2025 to 30th September 2025, would come to an
end. The monthly consolidated honorarium is Rs.91,000/- for the first
Petitioner and Rs.52,800/- for the second Petitioner.
4. The reason for instructing them not to report for duties is that an
advertisement is published on 29th September, 2025 on the Government e-
Market Portal (GeM portal) which indicates that the positions occupied by
these Petitioners would now be outsourced through the Tender process. The
said Tender indicates that retired employees of the Central Government could
apply for contractual engagements and they would be performing the same
duties which the Petitioners are presently performing. Reliance is placed on
the judgments delivered by this Court in Madhukar B. Sadgir v/s. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.1, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Jaggo v/s. Union of India and Ors. 2, and Dharam Singh and Ors. v/s. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr.3
5. The learned Advocate for the Union of India and the learned
Advocate for the University of Mumbai, have opposed grant of any ad-
interim relief. The Advocate for the Union of India has placed before us a
photostat copy of a note dated 30th September 2025, received by her from
the Director, UM-DAE CEBS. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X-
1’ for identification. The said note reads as under :
“In this context, interalia, UM-DAE CEBS would like to apprise
Hon'ble Court that the petitioners were appointed in UM-DAE
CEBS on contract basis as there were no regular such posts
approved by the Department. These contracts came to an end on
30th September, 2025. CEBS would like to apprise the Hon'ble
Court that for such posts the GeM Tender
GEM/2025/B/6705157 dated 19-09-2025 will be cancelled.
The department will use the known resources through re-
deployment etc to manage the organization for these posts. The
Ministry of Finance has recently conveyed sanction for creation
of 30 regular posts in academic, technical and administrative
category at UM-DAE-CEBS. The sanction was conveyed to
CEBS vide Department Note No.6/8(1)/2018/UM- DAE-
CEBS/R&D-II/ Vol.II/11157 dated 20.08.2025 which includes
10 administrative posts. Further Hon'ble Court may be informed
that the advertisement for all these sanctioned posts will be
issued soon with the approval of the Department of Atomic
1 2019(2) Mh.LJ 119
2 2024 INSC 1034
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
Page 5 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
Energy, UM-DAE CEBS will not re-engage any employee in the
same post as the petitioners or in any sanctioned post as of the
petitioners through any new contract advertising through GeM
portal or otherwise.
6. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 24th November,
2025. Mrs. Raghuwanshi, the learned Advocate waives service of notice on
behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Rodrigues, the learned Advocate also
waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3 and the learned AGPs
waive service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.4 in the respective
Petitions.
7. Let the affidavits in reply be filed by the contesting Respondents,
with pagination in continuation, at least, 10 days prior to the returnable date.
Office objections, if any, to be removed, on or before 6th November, 2025,
failing which, both these Petitions shall stand dismissed without reference to
the Court, on 7th November, 2025.
8. The recruitment through the Tender process would strike at the
root of the continuous service of these Petitioners between 11 to 16 years.
Now, Respondent No.1 has decided to cancel the Tender as mentioned in ‘X-
1’, and 30 posts are now created, to be filled in through public employment.
Therefore, we direct that the two posts currently occupied by the Petitioners
shall not be filled, even if an advertisement for recruitment is published. We
direct that these Petitioners may be allowed to perform their duties as usual
from today and would draw their consolidated pay for the duration that they
are working. No equities would be created in their favour, by this order.
9. Though the recruitment process may continue, Respondent Nos.1
and 2, would not formalize the same without the leave of the Court.”
4. Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that during the
pendency of these petitions, one more advertisement has been issued on the basis
that there are now sanctioned posts which are available, and which in fact, are for
the same work and posts as held by the petitioners, although the nomenclature of
the post is different. These posts are Registrar I / Administrative Officer-III,
Deputy Controller of Accounts, Administrative Officer-III/Assistant, Assistant
Accounts Officer and Assistant Personnel Officer. Thus, steps are being taken by
respondent No.1 to fill up all these posts. It is also the contention urged on behalf
of respondent No.1 that the petitioners can participate in the selection process, if
Page 6 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
they so desire. However, Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would
submit that such participation would create a fait accompli for the petitioners,
inasmuch as they have acquired substantive rights on account of their long years
of service. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot now be subjected to the
uncertainty of a fresh selection process.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Mr.
Helekar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, would not dispute the long years
of service rendered by the petitioners and that the petitioners are performing
duties which, in fact, are to be performed by regularly appointed employees. The
only question that arises is as to why there has been a delay on the part of the
Union of India in according approval to the posts actually held by the petitioners,
apart from the new posts which have now been created and are sought to be filled
up.
6. Mr. Helekar, however, on instructions, has taken a fair stand. He states that
the petitioners’ appointment would not, in any manner, be disturbed,
notwithstanding the process to make appointments to the newly created posts is
being undertaken, in respect of which an advertisement is stated to have been
issued in October 2025.
7. In these facts of the case, considering the settled position in law, it would
be arbitrary for the employer like respondent No.1 which is created under the
control of the Central Government, to keep the petitioners ad-hoc and not
confirm on the said posts despite such long years of service being taken from
them. In such context we may refer to the settled principle of law as laid down by
Page 7 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
the Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India4 wherein the Supreme Court
considered whether employees engaged on temporary or contractual basis for
long periods while performing perennial duties could be denied regularization by
merely relying upon the nomenclature of their appointments. The Court held that
where the work performed is perennial in nature and fundamental to the
functioning of the establishment, the employer cannot indefinitely continue such
employees on temporary terms and thereafter invoke the judgment in Umadevi
(supra) to defeat their legitimate claim. The relevant observations of the Supreme
Court read thus:
“13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks
merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these
duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their
initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'
termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another,
further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
………
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
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
Page 8 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not
only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By
ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
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.”
8. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 5, the Supreme Court
held that although the creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the
refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for
arbitrariness, particularly where the employer ignores the functional necessity of
the work and its own longstanding reliance on employees performing regular and
perennial duties. The Court observed that continuous deployment of employees
to perform duties which are continuous, integral and perennial demonstrates the
permanent nature of the work, and that the State cannot continue extracting such
work for years while pleading want of sanctioned strength. The Court further held
that Umadevi distinguishes between illegal appointments and irregular
engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment
where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its
house in order. It reiterated that Umadevi cannot be deployed as a shield to justify
long-term ad hocism or exploitative contractual engagements. In the present case,
the petitioners have continuously discharged perennial and indispensable public
health duties after being appointed through a duly constituted selection process,
and the respondents cannot rely upon the contractual nature of their
5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
Page 9 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
appointments to deny consideration for regularization. The respondents' refusal
to regularize the petitioners despite their long and uninterrupted service, the
admitted existence of sanctioned vacancies and the regularization of similarly
situated employees is, therefore, arbitrary and squarely covered by the principles
laid down in Dharam Singh & Ors.. The relevant observations of the Supreme
Court read thus:
“8. The State's refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial constraints” and the
subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court's direction to
reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. Neither
decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the
Commission's 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged
administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the
continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of
attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic. While
creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction
posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe
that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”,
ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance
on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of
reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the
appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office
support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission's
functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The
Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of
fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal
demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants' labour on
regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To
continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned
strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
…
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High
Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike
Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's
arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own
acknowledgment of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very
workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between
illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the
perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent
and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of
this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India 4 and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be
deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the
use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical
Page 10 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein
apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal
(supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) 2 to
contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter
being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More
importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative
engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-
based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff
the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered
their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.
Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's
failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an
adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian
labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
Morally and legally, workers who fulfill ongoing municipal requirements
year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly
in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
“temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this
court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector,
the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,
job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized
for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly
in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution
Page 11 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their
roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently
dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their
roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort
to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
……
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing
cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair
engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's
further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue
only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the
pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not
exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality
of those refusals.
.…
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the
High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and
25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for
sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed."
… … ...
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
Page 12 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
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.”
9. In Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 6 in the very context, the
Supreme Court has observed thus:
“13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State’s
decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous
service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the
appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived
the advantage of the appellants’ experience and institutional familiarity, while
the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any
departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that
frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported
by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An
employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and
has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus
or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the
respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair
treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is
contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by
States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”,
“contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not
regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court
underscored that government-departments must lead by example in ensuring
fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the
duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this
Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra)
to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory
rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to
legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking
regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a
distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfillment of the
6 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129
Page 13 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the
culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The
Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a
means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful
engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the
appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery
of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our
Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner
free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the
careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided
by fairness and reason.”
10. Considering the aforesaid settled principle of law, we are of the opinion
that the petitions need to be disposed of, however, in terms of the following order:
(I) We accept the statement as made on behalf Mr. Helekar, learned
Counsel for respondent No.1 that the services of the petitioners would not
be disturbed.
(II) We direct the Union of India to create the posts as held by the
petitioners within a period of two months from today, and on such posts
the petitioners are directed to be regularized considering their long years of
service and principles of law as discussed hereinabove.
(III) Respondent No.1 is free to undertake and complete the exercise of
filling up the posts under the advertisement issued in October, 2025
without in any manner whatsoever, disturbing the employment of the
petitioners.
(V) All contentions of the petitioners in regard to any other benefits are
expressly kept open.
Page 14 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
14.DOC
11. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending Interim Applications would not survive. They, accordingly, stand
disposed of.
(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 15 of 15
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.