SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 13-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2017] I I S.C.R. 138 
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 18510 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 13,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Service law - Regularization - Appel/a11t initially engaged 
on daily wage basis - Later on. appoillled on contractual basis -
Then respondenrs chose to give minimum of the pay scale, which 
was available to the regular employees - Ajier few years. conferred 
the status of tempormy employees - High Court directed to consider 
them for regularization but their services were not regularized -
Ultimately High Co11rt dismissed writ petition of appellants and 
services of appellants terminated on the finding that their 
appoilllment was irregular - Supreme Court while entertaining 
special leave petition held that there was no back door employment 
or entry of the appellants in service so as to disentitle them from 
benefit of regularization as envisaged in *Uma Devi case- Therecrfier 
appellants were taken back in service and continued in sen-ice -
E 
Claim for reg11lwization - Held: The High Court dismissed the writ 
petitions relying on Uma Devi case - B111 the appellants were 
employed basici1/ly in the year 1993; they had rendered service for 
three yem:s, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it 
was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in 
F 
place for offering such kind of appointment - Tims, the appointment 
could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as 
there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, 
when their temporary status was conferred w.ef. 2.10.2002 - The 
appellants were required to be appointed 011 reg11lar basis as a one-
time 111eas11re. as laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi - Since 
G 
the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary 
status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect 
in the 2.10.2002, their services are regularized fi'om 2.10.2002, 
consequential ben~/its and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the 
appellants. 
H 
138 
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
139 
PRADESH & ORS. 
Judicial notice - Appointmen.t on .contract basis or ad-hoc 
A 
basis or daily-wage basis in dijferenc State departments - Judicial 
notice taken that widely said practice is being continued - The 
decisio11 i11 Uma Devi is not properly 1111derstood a11d rather wrongly 
applied by various State Govemments -
New devise of making 
appointme11t 011 contract basis has been adopted, employment is 
offered 011 daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms - This situation 
B 
was not envisaged by Uma Devi - The prime intendment of the 
decision was that the employment process should be by fair means 
and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale - That 
spii"it of the Uma Devi has been ignored and conveniently overlooked 
by various State Govemments authorities - It is being used only as c 
a tool for not regularizi11g the services of i11cumbents - They are 
being co11ti11ued in service without payment of due salary for which 
they are entitled on the basis of Arts.14, 16 rlw Art.34 (J){d) of the 
Constitution of India as if they have 110 constitutional protection -
They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require 
D 
protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily - The kind of 
treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional 
and is denial of rights-Constitution of Jndia-Arts.14, 16, 34(1)(d)-
S:lrvice law - Regularization. 
*Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & 
Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006) 3 SCR 953; D.S. Nakara 
v. Unio11 of India AIR 1983 SC 130 : [1983] 2 SCR 
165· - relied on. 
[2006] 3 SCR 953 
[1983] 2 SCR 165 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
relied on 
Para4 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 18510 
of2017. 
E 
F 
F com the Judgment and Order dated 27 .10.2014 of the High Court G 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal Defective 
No. 619 of2014. 
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Divyanshu Sahay, Rohit Kumar Singh, 
Sanjay Goel, Advs. for the Appellant. 
H 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] l l S.C.R. 
A 
Aarohi Bhalla, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar (for Ardhendumauli Prasad), 
Lav Kumar Agrawal, Kundan Kumar Lal, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
B 
l. Leave granted. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
. G 
H 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
3. The appellants were initially engaged on daily-wag

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.