Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.04.09 13:03:54 +0530

Order on Board

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the series of judicial verdicts are referred above right from Umadevi's case (supra) read with Narendra Kumar Tiwari's case (supra) upto recent verdicts as a onetime measure within a time frame.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any order relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. An affidavit is filed herewith in support of this petition.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are employees of respondent department and are appointed on the post of Second A.N.M. as contractual basis by order dated 01.09.2015, since then they are continuously performing their duty on the said post. Petitioners are in service since 2015 however, they have not been regularized. Therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the concerned authority and direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of their service within specified time frame. They place reliance upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Gopi Sao and Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors in a writ appeal bearing WA No. 14 of 2017 dated 07.012.2018.

3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and are only seeking direction to consider and take decision on pending representation, he is having no objection.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

5. Claim as raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as contractual basis since 2015, however, till date they have not been regularized.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026 has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service.

8. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices and observed thus:

“17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union an