ORDER : By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s) :- "(i) To allow the instant petition by issuing writ of ‘mandamus’ directing the respondents to regularize/abs orption the services of the petitioner from the date of regularization of services of the junior employee/similarly situated employees with all consequential benefits. (ii) To call the entire record in respect of the petitioner proper adjudication of the case. (iii) Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the litigation." 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working in the respondent Organization since the year 1986 and in the intervening period, his services were retrenched and he had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed award dated 10.07.2001 and it has been categorically found by the Labour Court that the petitioner is working as labourer since 07.11.1986 and he has been illegally retrenched from service in the year 1998. Consequently, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.4 to 11 have been regularized in service who have been engaged on daily wages after the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the Municipal Corporation is discriminatory. 4. Per contra, the Municipal Corporation has filed the reply and it is stated that the respondents No.4 to 11 who have been regularized have been regularized in terms of some orders passed by the Labour Court in their case and, therefore, those employees have been regularized. The petitioner never approached the Labour Court and now cannot seek parity with those employees. It is further contended that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents has considered the case of the petitioner for regularization vide Annexure R/5 dated 08.07.2025 and rejected his case on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner is illegal and, therefore, he cannot be regularized. 5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that initial engagement of the petitioner in the year 1986 is not in dispute and the petitioner having put in 38 years of service as on date is also not in dispute. 5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that initial engagement of the petitioner in the year 1986 is not in dispute and the petitioner having put in 38 years of service as on date is also not in dispute. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to place on record the appointment order as daily rated employee and, therefore, he is deemed to be an illegally appointed person who cannot be regularized. 6. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that there is distinction between irregular and illegal appointment. The Constitution Bench has considered various judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of illegal and irregular appointment and held as under:- " 15. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public employment in this country, and the executive, or for that matter the Court, in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been followed. This right of the executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the court being in a position to direct that an appointment made in clear violation of the constitutional scheme, and the statutory rules made in that behalf, can be treated as permanent or can be directed to be treated as permanent. 31. There have been decisions which have taken the cue from the Dharwad (supra) case and given directions for regularization, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. The philosophy behind this approach is seen set out in the recent decision in The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (JT 2006 (2) SC 1), though the legality or validity of such an approach has not been independently examined. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent." 7. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent." 7. The Constitution Bench held that when there has been non compliance of procedure or manner of appointment then it can be stated to be irregular appointment and can be regularized. Not following the recruitment process is obviously one of the conditions as per which the appointment can be said to be irregular as there has been non compliance of procedure or manner of appointment. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has held that the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) is being grossly misinterpreted by the Government Departments and the Departments are wrongfully rejecting the claims of the employees even in cases where appointments are not illegal but only lack adherence to procedural formalities. It has been held that the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) itself acknowledges the cases where regularization is appropriate and the said judgment cannot be used to weaponize against such employees who have rendered indispensable services over a number of decades. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "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. 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 5 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: Signature Not Verified “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 conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 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. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits." 9. The Hon'ble Court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits." 9. The Hon'ble Court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Shyam Kumar Yadav and another (SLP (c) No. 25609 of 2018) has held that though employees engaged on daily wages have no legally vested right to claim regularization but if competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework then its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy. 10. In the present case, the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that his initial appointment was not by following the process and no appointment order is on record. It is trite that a daily rated employee enters engagement without any formal order and once he continues for services for number of decades as in the present case it has been for as many as 38 years, then after such number of years the employer cannot short- circuit his case for regularization on the ground that there is no appointment order engaging him as daily rated employee. 11. Even regularization of private respondents No.4 to 11 may be as per orders of the Labour Court but if the petitioner was similarly situated and was senior to the aforesaid employees then the respondents were bound to consider the case of the petitioner also because if the petitioner was similarly situated then he had a right to be considered in similar terms. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 , in para 22.1 has held as under:- ''22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.'' Thus, it is evident that the ratio of law is that if a relief is extended to similarly situated persons then, they are to be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to rebut this legal position to support his contention that the judgment of the Labour Court is in personam and cannot be extended to similarly situated persons. 12. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on any appropriate post for which he has the requisite educational qualification as per the policy dated 16.05.2007 as well as its clarification dated 29.09.2014 which permits regularization on equivalent post for which the employee may has the requisite educational qualification. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within 60 days from the date of production of copy of this order. 13. The petition is allowed. The order Annexure R/5 stands set aside.