The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the opposite parties, and after hearing both sides, further be pleased to allow the writ petition;

And issue writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 series within a period stipulated and/or regularize the services of the petitioner as a peon;

And issue writ of prohibition to the opposite parties from retrenching the petitioner from his services;

And pass such other writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/declaration(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by facing due recruitment process, petitioner was appointed as a contractual Peon in the establishment of Gopabandhu Academy of Administration-Opp. Party No.2 on 31.12.2010 under Annexure-4.

3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner was allowed to continue on contractual basis w.e.f. 31.12.2010 by facing due recruitment process and when he was not regularized on the face of such long continuance, the present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.

3.2. It is also contended that along with the petitioner 7 (seven) other contractual Peons so appointed in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the meantime have already been regularized, and one such order is available under Annexure-8. However, petitioner’s claim is yet to be considered and disposed of on the face of the recommendation available under Annexure-7 by Opp. Party No.2 to Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dated30.09.2022.

3.3. It is contended that in view of such long continuance w.e.f. 31.12.2010 on contractual basis, petitioner though became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the resolution issued by the G.A. & P.G. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 as well as the Notification issued on 14.11.2022, while replacing the 2013 Rule, but petitioner was never regularized.

3.4. It is also contended that in view of such long continuance w.e.f. 31.12.2010 claim of the petitioner for his regularisation in service is covered by the decisions 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. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99 .

3.5. 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