Government entities must regularize long-term contractual employees in essential roles, upholding constitutional employment rights against arbitrary terminations.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of Opp.Party No.4 in spite of due appearance.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 31.01.2022, so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-12.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a DEO on contractual basis vide order dated 03.02.2010 so issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-1. After being so engaged on contractual basis, petitioner when was not regularized on the face of the communication made by the Municipality under Annexure-5 and 7, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34244 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2020 under Annexure-11, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 under Annexure-12.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that since petitioner’s initial engagement is on contractual basis, his claim is not covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and instead it is covered by the decision in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others Vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C)No.19951 of 2020, disposed of on 09.09.2021).

3.2. It is further contended that since petitioner is continuing on contractual basis w.e.f. February, 2010 in view of the decision in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash so cited (supra), which has now been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the decisions 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 , petitioner’s claim is required to be re-considered afresh.

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 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 Sta