Does the "one time measure" directed in Umadevi lapse once the six month period from that decision has expired?

No. The one time exercise is concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Umadevi are so considered. That the employer did not undertake the exercise within six months, or undertook it only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees the right to be considered for regularisation.

Constitution of India — Arts. 16 and 142 — Regularisation of ad hoc, contractual and daily wage employees — "One time measure" — Sanctioned vacant post — Advertisement and interview — Future cut-off date — Lowest pay scale — Constitution of India — Art. 16 — Policy reviving an earlier withdrawn regularisation policy — Validity — Held: A policy extending regularisation to ad hoc employees left out of an earlier withdrawn policy is valid where the criteria prescribed are not in any manner watered down from those for regular appointment. Initial engagement on a sanctioned vacant post continuing at the time of regularisation, with the prescribed qualification, is not arbitrary. (¶18, 20) Constitution of India — Art. 16 — Regularisation without advertisement or interview — Future cut-off date — Held further: Regularising ad hoc employees engaged without any advertisement and without facing any interview is arbitrary and illegal, the absence of any record of the manner of engagement inspiring no confidence. A future cut-off date beyond four years means posts which could have been filled in through regular recruitment are not liable to be advertised. (¶21) Constitution of India — Art. 142 — "One time measure" under Umadevi — Continuation at lowest pay scale — Held further: The one time exercise directed in Umadevi concludes only when every employee entitled to be considered is so considered, and expiry of the six month period does not disentitle him. Employees continuing under the struck down notifications may continue at the lowest pay scale under Article 142. Appeals disposed of. (¶19, 23)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MADAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India