Long-term engagement of contractual employees performing perennial duties, despite artificial breaks, entitles them to regularization. As a constitutional employer, a public entity cannot use temporary labels to exploit labour, and claims for regularization are not barred by the principle of delay and laches.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Service Law - Regularization of services - Long-term engagement of contractual employees - Nature of work - Whether perennial work performed for over two decades mandates regularization - Yes - Where work is permanent and recurring, persistent labelling as contractual or temporary constitutes arbitrary exploitation - Practice of artificial and intermittent breaks in service to deny benefit of regular status is not legally sustainable - Public entity acts as a constitutional employer and must ensure fair treatment in service matters - Provisions for budgetary constraint do not override fundamental duties to organize work on lawful lines - Doctrine of delay and laches is not applicable to the struggle of employees for regularization after prolonged tenure - Writ jurisdiction can be invoked to correct such administrative arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power. (Paras 12, 13, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, engaged on a contractual basis, performed duties essential to the operation of the institution for over two decades. Despite their long-standing service, they were subjected to artificial and periodic breaks to prevent them from attaining permanent status. The respondents denied their request for regularization based on policy guidelines and the nature of the engagement. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their representations, citing the permanent and perennial nature of their functions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the nature of work performed by the petitioners was permanent and integral to the functioning of the institution. The periodic breaks imposed between their employment terms were deemed artificial and engineered solely to prevent the acquisition of regular status. The court emphasized that a public entity is a constitutional employer and must avoid exploiting labour through long-term temporary labels, holding that such exploitation violates constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

Issues: The main issues were whether long-term contractual employees performing perennial functions are entitled to regularization regardless of their initial engagement terms, and whether the respondent’s plea of delay and laches or intermittent service breaks can legally bar such claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued engagement of workers for over two decades on ostensibly temporary terms, while they perform duties indispensable to the institution, effectively renders the positions permanent. The court ruled that such employees cannot be denied their rights based on technicalities like artificial service breaks and that the respondent has a constitutional obligation to regularize employees when the nature of their work and tenure warrants it.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders rejecting regularization are quashed and set aside; respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of ten years of service, including all consequential service benefits.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of cases and initial factual background of petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. employer contention against right to regularization due to contractual nature. (Para 6 , 7)
3. petitioner reliance on permanent nature of work for regularization. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. defense arguments regarding delay, laches, and non-continuous service. (Para 15 , 16)
5. constitutional employer duty limits non-regularization of perennial services. (Para 17 , 18)
6. order for regularization and quashing of previous rejection orders. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, and hence, with the consent of the parties, all were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The prayers have been made for regularization of the services of the respective petitioners.

The Facts: -

3. In W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022, the case of the petitioner (Sanjay Kumar Jha) is that he has M.A. in Geography with B.Ed. An advertisement was issued on 19.10.2002. After facing the selection process, he was appointed on 16.04.2003.

The case of the petitioner (Isha Kumari) in W.P.(S) No. 1166 of 2022 is that she has M.A. in History. She also faced the same selection process and she was appointed on 16.04.2002.

The case of the petitioner (Jai Prakash Narain) in W.P.(S) No. 1167 of 2022 is that he has M.Sc. (Chemistry) with B.Ed. and advertisement in his case was also issued on 19.10.2002 and he was appointed on 23.08.2004.

It is the case of Shobha Pandey in W.P.(S) No. 1225 of 2022 that she has M.A. in Sanskrit with B.Ed. and the advertisement in her case was issued on the same day, i.e. on 19.10.2002 and she was appointed on 17.04.2003.

Bimlesh Dutta Mishra in W.P.(S) No. 1236 has M.com with B.Ed. and BA in History. He also faced the same advertisement dated 19.10.2002 and got appointed on 17.04.2003.

The Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1238 of 2022 (Shabnam Perween) has B.A. with B.Ed. who faced advertisement dated 19.02.2002 and was appointed on 15.09.2005.

The Petitioner Shabnam Perwin in W.P.(S) No. 309 of 2002 has B.A. with B.T. She faced advertisement dated 19.02.2002 and was appointed on 20.12.2004.

In W.P.(S) No. 340 of 2023 the Petitioner (Harendra Kumar Singh) has B.Sc. in Mathematics with B.T. He also faced the same advertisement and was appointed on 15.07.2004.

4. Though the facts of each case are almost common; as such for convenience, facts of W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022 (Sanjay Kumar Jha case) has been referred hereinbelow. An advertisement was issued in daily newspaper Hindustan for engagement of teachers on contractual basis. Pursuant to which, the petitioner being eligible applied for such appointment. After facing selection process, appointment letter was issued to him and the same has been placed on record at Annexure-1. His case is that he was appointed on a sanctioned and vacant post of post-graduate trained teacher in the Department of Geography.

A detailed chart has been placed on record as Annexure 2 of the writ petition with respect to sanction of posts. A letter dated 9.5.2014 has been placed on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. As per this letter, the service of the petitioner was discontinued for a month (approx) from 19.05.2014 to 17.04.2014 with a further direction to resume duty on 18.04.2014 as usual.

5. The further case of this petitioner is that a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 6695 of 2007 was decided on 28.02.2008 in the case of DVC Teachers Association Vs. Damador Vally Corporation; whereby a direction was issued by this Court that DVC will not regularize any person engaged on part time/ contract basis.

This order was challenged in LPA No. 216 of 2008, which was disposed of on 28.04.2016 with a direction that the judgment of the writ Court will not come in the way of engagement / regularization in accordance with law and the judgment to this extent of the writ Court was mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document