Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-8 by Opp.Party No.2.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 on 01.08.1991 and since that date, Petitioner is continuing as such without any break in engagement and without protection of any interim order passed by any Court of law.

4.1 It is contended that since Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991, in view of the Finance Deptt. Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularisation with due absorption in the post in question.

4.2. It is also contended that basing on the resolution issued by the Finance Department on dt.04.09.2012 under Annexure-3, Petitioner though was extended with the benefit of temporary status vide order dt.03.10.2012 under Annexure-6, but Petitioner was never regularised.

4.3. On the face of such continuance without any break w.e.f 01.08.1991 and as a temporary employee w.e.f 03.10.2012, Petitioner when was not regularised , he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.36018 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.01.12.2021 when directed Opp. Party No.2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab , 2013 (14) SCC 65 and so also the resolution of the Finance Deptt. dt.04.09.2012, but without proper appreciation of the decisions of the Apex Court as cited supra, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 under Annexure-8.

4.4. It is contended that since petitioner without any break continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991 and as a temporary status employee w.e.f 03.10.2012, which is not disputed, the ground on which the Petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others, 2024 INSC 1034, Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh & Others VS. State of U.P. & Another, 2025 Live Law (SC) 818 Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularisation with quashing of the impugned rejection.

4.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Par-22 to 25 and 27 held 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 worker