The court is examining whether a long-term contractual employee performing permanent and critical duties has a legitimate expectation of regularization or age relaxation, notwithstanding contractual clauses that explicitly disclaim the right to regularization.

– B E F O R E –

(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited (OIL) for respondent Nos.2 to 8.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4595/2020 rejecting the claim of the appellant for being regularised in service.

The appellant is a Mechanical Engineer who has been working on contractual basis in OIL for several years. He has been associated with pipeline related projects. Initially he was hired for one year in the year 2007 for Pipeline Expansion Project. However, his engagement was repeatedly extended because the project could not be completed on time as also for the reason of his dedicated performance. He has also performed his duties at positions which partake of a permanent character.

Despite this, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate contends, the appellant was never absorbed into regular position.

In the year 2017, the respondent/OIL advertised permanent post of Grade ‘C’ but the appellant could not apply for that post because of being over-age though he met all other eligibility criteria like qualifications and experience.

The major contention of the appellant is that in the first instance also, he had joined after facing an interview and medical check-up. No doubt in the contracts, which were renewed with break, there was a stipulation of no right to regularisation. Nonetheless because he had been entrusted with critical and perennial tasks like pipeline maintenance and gas/oil transport, essential for OIL’s operation, there was a legitimate expectation that he would be absorbed in regular service or at least he would be given age relaxation, keeping in mind his long tenure with the respondent/OIL.

The learned Single Judge did not agree with the contentions of the appellant solely for the reason of the appellant being under contractual appointment with positive disclaimer towards regularisation. The learned Single Judge also was swayed by the fact that there were breaks in the contractual appointment, which admittedly were deliberate.

The reliance of the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034) was also specifically rejected holding that the facts in that case concerned Safaiwalas who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and had continued for a very long time. The facts of the afore-noted case, according to the learned Single Judge, are different from the case of the appellant as the appellant had served under contractual employment based on different contract agreements containing specific terms and conditions of service.

The learned Single Judge concluded that the service conditions of the appellant would be strictly governed by the terms of the contract.

Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that this smacks of an exploitative way of treating an employee, who for all practical purposes had served as a permanent employee in the OIL and deserved either to be regularised, or be given one time age relaxation.

The expostulation by the learned counsel for the respondent/OIL, however, is that pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2017, the recruitment process was concluded.

Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, however, contends that the post has still remained vacant.

This appeal is required to be heard.

Admit.

List this case for hearing on 04.08.2026.