Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
MANOJ M.G., PRIJILA T.K., JAYALAKSHMI VIJAYAN, SINITHA T.THANKACHAN, NITHAMOL S.T., SUNITHA K VIJAYAN, NIVY ABRAHAM, TOMY KURIAKOSE, JEEMOL M.S., RAJITHA RAJAN, MAYA ROHINI C.B., SELMA T BABU, ALPHONSA MATHEW, SANDRA MARIYA JANARDHANAN, JIJI JOSEPH, REMYA P V, MINI T V, SANTHOSH KUMBLE, BINO K THOMAS, SOBIN PAUL, ANUMOD KRISHNAN N., BINEESH BABU, ANU ARAVIND, LINI FLEX, LEKSHMI C. SENAN, BINI JIJO, ANILA PAUL, SUNITHA P. SKARIA, BIJU M.J., THARA R. NAMBOODIRI, RANI RAMAKRISHNAN, MAYA K, DEEPA G., SHARNET MERONA, ASHMI ARAVIND M., BIBY B., SAGEETHA JOHN, RESHMI C.S., MATHEWS JOY, SHYAM RAJ S., SESIL MATHEW, SHOBHITH PETER, MINI. R, PRIYA K.T – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4178 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JIJUMON H., SMT.ARSHA SATHEESAN, SRI.HEMANTH H.
For the Respondents: SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, SMT.O.M.SHALINA

Employees on long-term contracts may be entitled to regularization under new government policies and past court rulings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Public Employment - The petitioners, appointed as Public Relations Officers on a contract basis for over ten years, seek regularization of their service based on long-standing policy changes. The court directed consideration of their representation in light of precedents. (Paras 1-7)

(B) State Employment Policy - The court noted that similar cases were adjudicated prior and directed consideration consistent with the Apex Court's ruling in Jaggo v. Union of India. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners have over ten years of service and were selected through a regulated process. They submit that recent government policy favors regularization for long-serving contract employees.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the consideration of the petitioners' representation in line with existing precedents and the relevant contract terms.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are eligible for regularization after years of service despite being under contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that employment policies should ensure fair treatment for long-serving employees, referring to precedent cases to guide its judgment.

Result: Petition disposed of, directing representation consideration within four months.

Table of Content
1. regularization after ten years of service (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against regularization (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's directive on regularization request (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2026

The petitioners state that they are working as Public Relations Officers in different Hospitals under the National Health Mission on a contract basis for more than ten years.

2. According to the petitioners, they were selected through a due selection process initiated, by publication of recruitment notification of the Director of National Health Mission. They were appointed from a State-level ranklist.

3. The petitioners state that they have been rendering service for more than ten years and are eligible for regularisation in service. The petitioners have therefore submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners urge that Ext.P4 representation be considered by the 2^nd respondent.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and the Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 4^th respondent. It is urged that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis for a period one year and the terms of the contract has made it clear that the petitioners will not be eligible for any kind of preference in future employment. Therefore, the very prayer of the petitioners for regularisation of service, is unsustainable.

5. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would submit that recently the Kerala Government has taken a policy decision for regularisation of employees having more than ten years service. Therefore, their request is liable to be considered.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the 1^st respondent, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 4^th respondent.

7. I find that similarly situated persons approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.28898 of 2025 and this Court has directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners for regularisation in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others [2024 KHC 6750] Considering the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioners made in Ext.P4 representation in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the contract of appointment and other relevant facts. Orders shall be passed within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to any of the representatives of the petitioners and the 4^th respondent. It is made clear that any decision that may have taken in pursuance of Ext.P2 judgment will be applicable to the petitioners also.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document