Prolonged temporary employment in essential roles undermines workers' rights; continuous service mandates regularization, countering exploitative practices.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3-Housing Board.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2023, so issued under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1993 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis on 13.08.1993.

3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis w.e.f. 13.08.1993, but his claim for regularization when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30136 of 2021.

3.2. It is contended that vide order dated 04.01.2021, this Court when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for his absorption in the regular establishment by following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 , such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure- 5, only on the ground that petitioner’s initial engagement being after the cut off date, so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997 i.e. 12.04.1993, petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though claim of the petitioner for being absorbed in the regular establishment was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure-5, but as usual he was allowed to continue as a Daily Wage Driver.

3.4. It is further contended that in view of the recent decisions of the 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, the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected is no more sustainable.

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 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 a