JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The present petition is filed with following prayers: “(i) By an appropriate writ, direction, or order the respondents be kindly directed to regularise the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. and make him payment of salary ion regular pay scale of the said post since his initial date of appointment 1.3.1985 with all consequential benefits. (ii) That by an appropriate writ, direction, or order the respondents be kindly directed to make the petitioner permanent on the post of L.D.C. since he has already completed more than 10 years service and his name be notified in the seniority list at appropriate place according to his initial date of appointment 1.30.1985.” Brief Facts: - 2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC on 01.03.1985 by Chief Medical Health Officer, Kota on daily wages, to work on a specific project. Thereafter, upon completion of the said project, the petitioner was terminated from the services in an informal manner on 24.12.1985. 3. Subsequently, the termination was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, whereby, vide order dated 10.12.1992, the said termination was quashed, and petitioner was reinstated along with full back wages. 4. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to join the duties on the said post on 01.10.1997 and thereafter the petitioner prayed for regularization of his services in the Year 2000, however, respondents rejected the same. Therefore, the present petition is filed. SUBMISSION MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:- 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was rendering services at the sanctioned post. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the order dated 05.12.2007, issued by CMHO, wherein, at serial No. 10, the name of the petitioner was reflected, mentioning that the petitioner was rendering service on the said post from 06.05.1993. Therefore, the said post should be included in the sanctioned and vacant post. 6. Further, it was submitted that on 27.02.2009, the State Government issued a notification qua regularization of temporary/ daily wage workers, who have completed their service for a period of 10 years or more on 10.04.2006, without intervention of any Court/ Tribunal. The notification was issued after Hon’ble Apex Court had passed the judgment titled as State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; (2006) 4 SCC 1 7. The notification was issued after Hon’ble Apex Court had passed the judgment titled as State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; (2006) 4 SCC 1 7. Additionally, it was submitted that respondents sought information on 15.12.2009 qua regularization of employees appointed irregularly, resultant to which, respondents/competent authority sent a reply vide order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure- A/2), wherein, the name of the petitioner was reflected at Serial No.2. 8. Consequently, the competent authority sought information from the petitioner, to which the petitioner supplied the requisite information vide order dated 23.07.2012 and stated therein that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of the Court (Annexure- A/3). 9. Furthermore, it was submitted that the petitioner was deployed in the election duty, as District Election Officer. In support of the said contention reliance was placed upon Annexure-A/7 which reflected the name of the petitioner. Moreover, the payment of salary of the petitioner was sanctioned from the office of treasure of the state government. In support of the same, reliance was placed upon Annexure- R-A/1, wherein, the nomenclature qua the post of the petitioner was reflected as LDC/Judicial Clerk. 10. Thereafter, it was submitted that petitioner was superannuated on 01.12.2020 while rendering services as a daily wage worker. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in prayer clause which was allowed on 12.01.2022. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner had rendered approximately 35 Years of services from the date of initial appointment and rendered approximately 27 years of services from the date of reinstatement on the said post. 12. Further, it was submitted that an award passed by learned Labour Court holding the termination of an employee as invalid and illegal and accordingly directing the respondents qua reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service along with back wages does not amount to intervention of the Court, moreover, dictum encapsulated in State of Karnataka (Supra), has no role to play in regularization of service. In support of the same, reliance was placed upon State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand; DBSAW No.973/2023, decided on 08.05.2024 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India; 2024 INSC 1034 , decided on 20.12.2024 , respectively , wherein, it was opined that direction of reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service along with back wages cannot be equated to appointment by intervention of the Court. 13. Tarachand; DBSAW No.973/2023, decided on 08.05.2024 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India; 2024 INSC 1034 , decided on 20.12.2024 , respectively , wherein, it was opined that direction of reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service along with back wages cannot be equated to appointment by intervention of the Court. 13. Lastly, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad; Civil Appeal No.8157/2024 , decided on 31.01.2025. SUBMISSION MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:- 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the Year 1985 on temporary basis for a specified project under the UNFPA Project, thereafter upon completion of the project, services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1985. 15. It was further submitted that an award passed by learned Labour Court qua reinstatement was an ex-parte award, howsoever, it was fairly conceded that the said award was never assailed by the judgment debtor therein. 16. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner was reinstated due to the intervention of the Court, therefore, the order dated 05.12.2007(Annexure – A/1), issued by the Office of CMHO, Baran was wrongly interpreted, as the same was only qua 13 sanctioned posts of Junior Clerk and one post of Upper Division Clerk, which does not include the petitioner and accordingly does not entitle petitioner for the said post. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; (2006) 4 SCC 1 17. Additionally, it was submitted that in a case wherein appointment is made through the intervention of Court without a sanctioned post, irrespective of the law, regularization is impermissible for the reason that there is a distinction between irregular appointment and legal appointment. 18. Lastly, reliance was placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Singh & Ors.; Writ Appeal No.607/2023 and Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Special Leave Petition No.2543/2023 . In the light of the above, it was prayed that the present petition ought to be dismissed. 19. Heard and considered. 20. 18. Lastly, reliance was placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Singh & Ors.; Writ Appeal No.607/2023 and Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Special Leave Petition No.2543/2023 . In the light of the above, it was prayed that the present petition ought to be dismissed. 19. Heard and considered. 20. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, upon assiduous scanning of the records, this Court has made the following observations: - 20.1. That the petitioner was initially appointed in the Year 1985 on the post of LDC and was terminated in the same Year only. 20.2. That the termination order qua the petitioner was set aside by the learned Labour Court and award was passed qua reinstatement of the petitioner along with back wages. 20.3. That the said award of the learned Labour Court was never assailed by the respondents, therefore, argument qua ex- parte and temporary engagement of the petitioner holds no value. 20.4. That upon a perusal of order dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure-A/1), issued by CMHO, Baran, it is noted that the name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No.10, whereby, upon seeking information from Joint Director, qua sanctioned and vacant post, the name of the petitioner is enumerated therein and joining date is stipulated as 06.05.1993. 20.5. Despite various opportunities, respondents were unable to substantiate their arguments by any reasonable and justifiable evidence that petitioner was not appointed on the sanctioned post. Therefore, as the abovesaid order was issued by respondents themselves, emphasize that the petitioner in facts and circumstances was rendering services on a sanctioned and vacant post. 20.6. That in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra), it is opined that if a low paid employee is working for a prolonged period of time on irregular appointment, the dictum encapsulated in the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), will not create an impediment on their regularization as the same would result in exploitation and illegality. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the same is reiterated as below: - “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the same is reiterated as below: - “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 stagnate in their roles, creating a systematic disparity between them and 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 20.7. Taking note of the fact as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that an employee- Shri. Sohan Prakash Rathore, placed at Serial No.5 in order dated 05.12.2007 was retired in the year 2017, and persons appointed after the petitioner were also permitted to join and were regularized accordingly. Therefore, from the cutoff date of the regularization i.e. 10.04.2006, as mentioned in Notification dated 27.02.2009, it is deduced that the petitioner should be regularized. 21. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, in the interest of justice directs the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization from the cutoff date of the regularization i.e. 10.04.2006, as mentioned in Notification dated 27.02.2009, and accordingly release consequential and retiral benefits, as applicable qua the petitioner. 22. 21. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, in the interest of justice directs the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization from the cutoff date of the regularization i.e. 10.04.2006, as mentioned in Notification dated 27.02.2009, and accordingly release consequential and retiral benefits, as applicable qua the petitioner. 22. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed, with the aforementioned direction. 23. Stay application and/or pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.