1. Contractual computer operator terminated after 16 years — Challenge to termination and claim for regularization. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 420
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Kedar Singh, S/o. Late Shri Bairon Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14600 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Yashwant Singh for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Yashwant Singh for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
Termination orders passed in breach of judicial stay orders are void. Additionally, employees in irregular (not illegal) appointments serving over ten years in perennial roles are eligible for regularization consideration based on principles of equity and fairness.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of contractual employees - Continuous, long-term, and unblemished service performing perennial tasks can transform initially temporary engagements into a scenario demanding fair regularization - Distinction between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments - Employees in irregular appointments, engaged in sanctioned posts and serving continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure (Para 8).
(B) Contractual Employment - Replacement of a contractual employee by another contractual employee is impermissible; a contractual or temporary employee can be replaced by a regularly selected candidate only (Para 5).
(C) Administrative Law - Breach of Court Order - An order passed in breach of a stay order restraining the concerned authority from passing adverse orders is liable to be set aside (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A petitioner appointed as a Computer Operator on a contractual basis in 2004 served for over ten years. In 2010, the petitioner was replaced by another contractual employee, an action later deemed illegal by the court. Subsequently, despite a judicial stay order issued in a related writ petition restraining the authority from passing adverse orders, the petitioner's services were terminated on 02.03.2020.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination order dated 02.03.2020 was passed in clear breach of the stay order dated 03.11.2018, which specifically restrained the respondents from passing any adverse order during the pendency of the petition.
Issues: Whether the termination of service is valid despite the existence of a judicial stay and whether the petitioner is eligible for regularization after ten years of continuous service.
Ratio Decidendi: Termination orders issued in violation of a judicial stay are illegal and unsustainable. Furthermore, long-term service in perennial functions, where appointments are categorized as irregular rather than illegal, merits consideration for regularization to ensure fairness and equity.
Result: Termination order quashed and set aside; petitioner granted liberty to submit a representation for regularization to be decided by the respondents within 30 days.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: entitlement to regularization after 10 years; Respondents: representation to be considered. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Termination order passed in breach of stay; petitioner served over 10 years continuously on sanctioned posts. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Regularization may be granted for irregular appointments with 10+ years continuous service on sanctioned posts. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Termination quashed; petitioner allowed to file representation for regularization to be decided within 30 days. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can a contractual employee replaced by another contractual employee be terminated?
No, replacement of a contractual employee by another contractual employee is impermissible; only a regularly selected candidate can replace a contractual employee. (Para 5 )
7. What is the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments concerning regularization?
Irregular appointments, made with procedures like tests, may be regularized if continuous service exceeds 10 years, unlike illegal backdoor entries. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Does an order passed in breach of a stay order during pendency of a writ petition stand?
No, an order passed in clear breach of a subsisting stay order is liable to be set aside. (Para 10 )
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-
"It is prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 02.03.2020 by which services of the petitioner has been terminated, further direct to respondent to provide the salary for the period petitioner has worked in the department and direct the respondents to provide minimum salary to the petitioner which is being paid to other employees working on the same post and also consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his services.
Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 156 submits that the present petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 01/10/2004 and since then he worked in the respondent organization. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on post of Computer Operator and when the respondents tried to disturb his services, he has filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7123 of 2010 and by order dated 10/04/2012, the respondents were directed to re-engage the petitioner. He also submits that despite a stay order and direction, the services of the petitioner were discontinued on 02/03/2020. He also submits that the petitioner has served more than 10 years and he is eligible for regularization.
3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and he submitted that the petitioner may submit a representation which shall be considered by the respondents.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 01/10/2004 as Computer Operator, (man with machine). In year 2010, due to certain disturbance and to adjust Mohanlal Yadav in place of the petitioner, the aggrieved petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7123/2010, which was disposed by a Coordinate Bench on 10.04.2012 with following order:-
"It is not in dispute that petitioner's employment was on specific terms and conditions on contractual basis. However, his appointment remained in operation till the year 2010. It is vide order dated 13.4.2010 (Annx.11) that new incumbent was appointed on contractual basis. In the aforesaid background, it remains nothing but a case of replacement of contractual employee by another set of contractual employee, which is impermissible in view of catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court. In fact, a contractual or temporary employee can be replaced by regularly selected candidate only. In view of aforesaid, discontinuation of petitioner is illegal rather, his replacement, by another set of contractual employee goes against verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In the aforesaid background, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents that if they are in need of Computer Operator with Computer, then petitioner be reengaged. In any case, respondents are restrained to engage any person on contractual basis unless petitioner is given preference for his contractual employment. Respondents would, however, be at liberty to make regular appointment and petitioner may also compete, if eligible with other candidates. Stay application is also disposed of."
6. The petitioner has claimed that in garb of circular dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Department of Finance, the services were removed but vide order dated 03.11.2018 in second stay application in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9992/2018, the termination was stayed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9992/2018 was considered on 18.11.2020 and the petitioner
