Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 22.06.2022, so passed by Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Cook w.e.f. 01.11.1989 so reflected under Annexure-1-Series.

3.1. It is contended that on the face of such continuance as a daily wage cook w.e.f. 01.11.1989, Petitioner was never regularized in his services. But in terms of the Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 04.09.2012 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was granted with temporary status vide order dtd.26.11.2012 under Annexure-6.

3.2. Even though Petitioner was granted with temporary status vide order dtd.26.11.2012 under Annexure-6 and in the said order, the date of initial engagement of the Petitioner as a daily wager was shown as 01.01.1989, but when no step was taken to regularize him, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32549 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.26.10.2021 under Annexure-7, when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim in the light 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 , without proper appreciation of the said decisions and the long continuance of the Petitioner as a DLR cook w.e.f. 01.01.1989 and as temporary employee w.e.f. 26.11.2012, Petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.22.06.2022 under Annexure-8.

3.3. It is contended that taking into account the long continuance of the Petitioner as a DLR cook w.e.f. 01.01.1989 and as a temporary cook w.e.f. 26.11.2012 as per order under Annexure-6, in view of the recent 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 , the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable and Petitioner is eligible for his absorption in the regular establishment.

3.4. 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 prov