The court reaffirmed that long-standing temporary employees, performing essential duties, must be regularized, rejecting claims of irregularity based solely on appointment processes without addressing actual 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 order dt.20.06.2022 so passed under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.1. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization as against the post of Peon cum Night Watcher in the establishment of Opp. party No.3 was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Night Watcher in the office of the then DRDA, Khurda, on adhoc basis with regular scale of pay w.e.f 01.12.1993 vide order dt.03.01.1994 so issued under Annexure-1. It is contended that even though Petitioner continued as a Night Watcher on adhoc basis w.e.f 1.12.1993 in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1, but when no action as taken to absorb him in the regular establishment, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.1834 of 2022. This Court vide order dt.21.01.2022 under Annexure-4 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization, taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble 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 , such claim of the Petitioner without proper appreciation, was rejected vide the impugned order dt.20.06.2022 under Anneuxre-5.

4.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner was never appointed as against a sanctioned post and he was appointed without facing any selection process. Accordingly, such irregular appointment cannot be regularized, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi so followed in the case of M.L. Keshari.

4.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a Night Watcher w.e.f 1.12.1993 vide order dt.3.01.1994 under Annexure-1 and he continued all through, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected is no more sustainable in the eye of law, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered 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 Livelaw (SC) 818 and 4 and Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99 .

4.3. 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 s