Workers with perennial roles must be recognized for regularization without exploiting temporary classifications, aligning with constitutional obligations of fair treatment under employment law.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly contended that since during pendency of the Writ Petition, Petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 & 11 have already got the benefit of regularization, the Writ Petition be confined to the other petitioners.

3. It is contended that rest of the petitioners though were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cutoff date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997, but instead of absorbing them in the regular establishment in terms of said resolution, petitioners were brought over to the Work Charged Establishment vide order dated 31.08.2009 under Annexure-3 and 4.

3.1. It is contended that even though petitioners were brought over to the Work Charged Establishment vide order dated 31.08.2009, but they are yet to be regularized in their services. It is further contended that claiming such benefit of regularization, petitioners though approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2022 and this Court directed for consideration of their claim, the same was rejected by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 under Annexure-15.

3.2. It is contended that since all the petitioners are engaged as NMRs prior to 12.04.1993 and continuing in the Work Charged Establishment in terms of order issued on 31.08.2009 under Annexure-3 and 4, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, the ground on which petitioners claim has been rejected is no more sustainable.

3.3. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo 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 Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.

24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals fo