The main legal point established is that employees with irregular appointments may be entitled to regularization if they have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, as per the principles laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) and related cases.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellants were initially engaged on daily-wage basis in the month of August, 1993. Later on, they were appointed on contractual basis in the year 1996. In the year 2000, Respondent No.3 issued an order appointing them as regular employees on the minimum pay scale. By way of an order dated 25.7.2006, they were conferred the status of temporary employees with retrospective effect from 1.10.2002. There was a direction issued by the High Court to consider them for regularization, but their services were not regularized. Learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petition seeking regularisation. That order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. In the year 2014, the services of the appellants were terminated. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court vide order dated 27.10.2014, while dealing with the case of the appellants for regularization, that their appointments were illegal and not irregular one. This Court, while entertaining the special leave petition, on 23.3.2015 passed the following order:

“Issue notice.

It appears prima facie, that the petitioners had approached the High Court with a plea for regularization of services. Even this plea has not found favour in the impugned order. However, acting on this order dismissing the writ petition the respondents have decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. There is no casual connection between the two. However, it is the common case that the petitioners are not working for the last four months. We put the respondents to caution that if this Court does not uphold the impugned judgment the natural consequences will be that the petitioners will be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Therefore, it would be prudent for the respondents to carry on the services of the petitioners. It also appears that there is no back door employment or entry of the petitioners so as to dis-entitle them from what is envisaged in paragraph 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.

If the respondents permit the petitioners to return to their services, this will be without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights in the present proceedings.”

It was observed by this Court that there was no back door employment or entry of the appellants in service, so as to disentitle them from the benefit of regularization as envisaged in paragraph 53 of decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. Same is extracted hereunder:

“One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507, and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no