Prolonged temporary employment without regularization contravenes labor rights; employers must ensure fair and stable employment as mandated by judicial principles.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1 learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.01.03.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-9, wherein claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a NMR in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2 w.e.f.02.05.1997. It is contended that even though Petitioner was engaged as a NMR w.e.f. 02.05.1997 and the cut-off date so fixed by the Govt. in its communication dtd.15.12.2000 under Annexure-2 is 19.05.1997, but on the face of such long continuance when Petitioner was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7104 of 2020.

4.1. It is contended that this Court when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in the light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 , such claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner is continuing by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1291 of2002 and as he is not continuing against the sanctioned post.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is not a party to the proceeding in W.P.(C) No. 1291 of 2002 and the order passed by the NAC under Annexure-3 was modified vide order dtd. 02.03.2021 of the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner never continued as a NMR by virtue of any interim order and all through he is continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2. Accordingly, he is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi as cited supra and now the subsequent decisions in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018.

4.3. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo as cited supra in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and s