Regularization of employees must consider equitable treatment and the rights of long-serving individuals, given principles of fairness under the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, 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

“In the circumstances of the case, the humble petitioner fervently prays this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing impugned order No. 12361/H&FW dtd. 30.05.2020 of the Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt., Health and Family Welfare Department and commanding Opp. Party No.1 to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of completion of Six years of contractual appointment within a stipulated period with all consequential benefits.”

3. It is contended that vide order dated 13.04.2007 under Annexure-2, petitioner though was engaged as a Sweeper on contractual basis in PHC(N), Tarikund and was allowed to continue as such with passing of further order on 31.08.2010 under Annexure-3 in allowing the petitioner to continue on full time basis, but no action was taken on the face of the recommendation made by the concerned authority under Annexure-4. Petitioner when was not regularized, but persons similarly situated and recommended under Annexure-4, were regularized vide order dated 12.04.2018 under Annexure-5.

3.1. It is contended that claim of the petitioner when was not considered for his absorption, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2020, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for regularization, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2020 under Annexure-1.

3.2. It is contended that only on the ground that petitioner’s engagement does not come within the purview of Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 of the G.A. Department, such claim of the petitioner was rejected.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since basing on self-same recommendation made under Annexure-4, persons similarly situated were regularized vide order dated 12.04.2018 under Annexure-5, petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected on the ground indicated under Annexure-1.

3.4. It is further contended that even after rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 30.05.2020, petitioner is continuing on contractual basis as on date. It is accordingly contended that in view of 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 , petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization and appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No.1 to absorb the petitioner in the regular establishment.

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 principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibil