Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dtd.24.09.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order, while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization as against the post of Peon, he was allowed the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post.

4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Peon on daily wages basis w.e.f. 20.06.2009 vide office order issued under Annexure-1. On the face of such continuance on daily wage basis, when his services was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25548 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.03.12.2020 when directed Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.24.09.2021 under Annexure-3, but by allowing the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post in question.

4.2. it is also contended that Petitioner was so engaged by facing due recruitment process and against a sanctioned post of Peon.

4.3. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.4. It is further contended that in view of the recent decisions of the 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. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularization and appropriate direction be issued in that regard with quashing of the impugned order dtd.22.10.2021 under Annexure-8.

4.5. 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 Declaration6 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 Corporation7 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 for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law emplo