JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. The respondents in O.A.No.1984 of 2015 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent-applicant is presently working as a Casual Sweeper/Sanitation employee in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally. The respondent commenced her service in the said hospital in 1998 as a hand receipt sweeper. Originally, there was no attendance register. Later, she was formally appointed as a casual sweeper from 01.01.2004 in the said hospital through the Hospital Development Committee (‘HDC’, in short) on a daily wage basis. She continued as a daily waged sweeper and thereafter, from 01.06.2010, as a sanitation employee, as per the recommendations of the HDC. By Annexure A7 order, the 2 nd petitioner rejected the claim of the respondent for regularisation on the ground that she was a casual sweeper appointed through HDC. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said order, the respondent filed O.A. No.135 of 2014 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. by Annexure A8 order dated 01.12.2014, directing the Government to take a decision in the matter based on Annexure A9 Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the 1 st petitioner issued Annexure A10 Government Order dated 08.10.2015 rejecting the request of the respondent for regularisation. Hence, the respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading to Annexures A7 and A10 orders and set aside the same. (ii) Issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize the applicant as Sweeper/Part time contingent sweeper in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally, w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and disburse her all consequential monitory benefits. (iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be regularized as Sweeper/Part time Contingent sweeper in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally” 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the 1 st petitioner State filed a reply statement dated 16.08.2016 opposing the reliefs sought in the original application. 4. (iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be regularized as Sweeper/Part time Contingent sweeper in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagappally” 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the 1 st petitioner State filed a reply statement dated 16.08.2016 opposing the reliefs sought in the original application. 4. By the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 10.04.2017, the Tribunal disposed of the original application by setting aside Annexures A7 and A10 orders and directing to regularise the service of the respondent as a part-time sweeper with effect from 01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits. The petitioners were further directed to issue consequential necessary orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this original petition. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was not appointed in a sanctioned post, and the only sanctioned post available in the hospital is not vacant. The fact that the respondent is engaged temporarily by the HDC was overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The learned Senior Government Pleader relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC Online SC 3826], State of Maharashtra v. R.S Bhonde [ (2005) 6 SCC 751 ] and that of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.06.2025 in Bijumon P.J v. State of Kerala - OP(KAT)No.97 of 2025 - in support of his arguments. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and maintained the very same stand that was taken in the original application. 8. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the materials on record. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and the last paragraph of the impugned order read thus: “7. The only reason stated for not regularising the service of the applicant is that she was appointed by the Hospital Development Committee. It is in this context that Hussain Bhai’s case assumes importance. It may be noticed that this Tribunal specifically directed the claim of the applicant to be considered in the light of the said decision. The only reason stated for not regularising the service of the applicant is that she was appointed by the Hospital Development Committee. It is in this context that Hussain Bhai’s case assumes importance. It may be noticed that this Tribunal specifically directed the claim of the applicant to be considered in the light of the said decision. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the presence of an intermediary with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship is of no consequences while considering a claim for regularisation. Here, the rejection of the claim is only for the reason that there is an intermediary, the Hospital Development Committee in between the applicant and the Government. 8. Another reason stated for rejecting the claim of the applicant is a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case. Here, it may be noticed that the applicant has been continuously in service as a Sweeper in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Karunagappally from 1998 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has actually held in Umadevi’s case (2006 KHC 507) that all the department should undertake a one time exercise of regularising the irregularly appointed provisional employees who have been continuing for more than 10 years. It is not seen that such an exercise has been undertaken in the Health Services Department. 9. In a similar case the Hon’ble High Court in Jolly P.G. v. Union of India and others [ 2016 (2) KHC 22 ] directed the authorities to undertake the one time exercise of regularisation contemplated by paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi’s case. Here, in this case also a temporary employee continuing as a Sweeper in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital since 1998 is still constrained to continue on meagre daily wages and her claim for regularisation has been rejected by Annexure A7 order only for the reason that her appointment was through the Hospital Development Committee. 10. Annexures A7 and A10 orders cannot be sustained on the reasons stated in Hussain Bhai’s case. There will be a direction to regularise the service of the applicant as a Part Time Sweeper with effect from 01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits. Respondents 1 and 2 shall issue necessary orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is disposed of as above”. 9. There will be a direction to regularise the service of the applicant as a Part Time Sweeper with effect from 01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits. Respondents 1 and 2 shall issue necessary orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is disposed of as above”. 9. It is true that in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union [ AIR 1978 SC 1410 ] , it was held that the presence of an intermediary with whom alone the workers have an immediate or direct relationship is of no consequence while considering a claim for regularisation. Similarly, in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] , the Apex Court directed all the departments to undertake a one-time exercise of regularising the irregularly appointed provisional employees who have been continuing for more than ten years. Such one-time exercise of regularisation as contemplated in Umadevi was directed in Jolly P.G. v. Union of India and others [ 2016 (2) KHC 22 ] . But in those judgments, there was no finding that an employee appointed in a non-sanctioned post is also entitled for regularisation. In the instant case, the respondent is appointed by the HDC on daily wage, since there was no sanctioned post. Therefore, the dictum in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and Jolly P.G. [ 2016 (2) KHC 22 ] is not applicable to the instant case. 10. It is relevant to note that in paragraph 26 of Jaggo [2024 SCC Online SC 3826] , the Apex Court held thus: “26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 regularisation 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. 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 regularisation exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgement of cases where regularisation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades”. (underline supplied) 11. In R.S. Bhonde [ (2005) 6 SCC 751 ] , the Apex Court held thus: “7. Additionally, as observed by this Court in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union [ (2001) 7 SCC 346 ] the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post. Again in Gram Sevak Prashikshan Kendra v. Workmen [ (2001) 7 SCC 346 at 356 (cited case), in para 3], it was held that mere continuance every year of seasonal work obviously during the period when the work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists post and regularisation is done”. (underline supplied) 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 18.06.2025 in O.P.(KAT) No.97 of 2025 , after referring to Umadevi and other judgments of the Apex Court, held thus: “6. On a conspectus reading of the above judgments, we are not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sandesh Raja, that Uma Devi’s case (supra) would mandate regularisation of employees who have put in 10 years of continuous service. In Uma Devi’s case, the Apex Court considered regularisation of temporary employees as a one-time measure, as evident in Para 53 of the judgment. That does not mean that the Government is bound to regularise every such employee. Regularisation falls within the policy domain of the Government. The posts claimed by the petitioners are not sanctioned posts. The Apex Court in the above judgments declared that the court cannot order regularisation of employees in non-sanctioned posts. Therefore, this Court and the Tribunal cannot order the regularisation of employees like the petitioners without there being sanctioned posts to accommodate the petitioners. We do not find any merit in these original petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed”. (underline supplied) 13. Therefore, this Court and the Tribunal cannot order the regularisation of employees like the petitioners without there being sanctioned posts to accommodate the petitioners. We do not find any merit in these original petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed”. (underline supplied) 13. As noticed hereinabove, the respondent is not appointed in a sanctioned post. The appointment was made by the HDC, as temporary staff on a contract basis. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners herein while passing the impugned order. 14. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, we find that the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to allow this original petition. In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 10.04.2017, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1984 of 2015, and the original application stands dismissed.