Can a Contractual Employee Become a Regular Employee if a Comparable Employee has been Regularized?

Can a Contractual Employee Seek Regularisation When a Comparable Colleague Has Already Been Regularised? Courts weigh equality principles under the Constitution.

A recurring question in Indian employment law is whether a contractual employee can transition to regular employee status, particularly when another employee in a comparable position has already been regularised. This issue is especially significant for long-serving workers in government, public sector undertakings, and institutions where temporary engagements have become a permanent feature. The core concern is whether the principle of equality mandates that similar treatment be extended to all similarly situated employees, or whether the contractual label itself bars such claims.

The Legal Framework: Contractual vs. Regular Employment

Contractual employees are typically hired for fixed terms, often without the benefits associated with permanent staff such as job security, pensions, or regular increments. Regularisation, on the other hand, implies absorbing such employees into the permanent cadre, granting them full service benefits. While temporary or ad-hoc appointments are meant to address short-term needs, courts have repeatedly noted that temporary contracts have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees 2025 3 Supreme 26. The key distinction is that a part-time worker generally cannot claim parity with a full-time employee, but a long-serving contractual worker performing essential duties may have a stronger case.

The Principle of Equality and Similarly Situated Employees

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. Courts have consistently held that if one contractual employee is regularised, others in comparable positions may claim parity. However, this is not an automatic right; it depends on the facts of each case.

Cases Where Courts Have Granted Regularisation Based on Comparables

Several judicial precedents affirm that discrimination against long-serving contractual employees, especially when juniors or comparable workers have been regularised, violates constitutional rights. In a significant case, the Supreme Court held that where individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularised, the preferential treatment accorded to some amounted to discriminatory behaviour. The Court ordered regularisation with continuity of service, though without back wages 2025 3 Supreme 26.

The Karnataka High Court similarly quashed the denial of regularisation for a petitioner who had served for over 30 years, noting invidious discrimination in the non-regularisation of his services compared to similarly situated employees. The Court directed regularisation within four months 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2176. Another ruling emphasised that relief granted to similarly situated persons must be extended, or else it violates the principle of equality 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 812. In a case involving a contractual peon appointed since 2010, the Court directed consideration of his case because similar contractual employees had already been regularised 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 199.

Common factors in successful claims:- Long, continuous service (typically 10 years or more) in a sanctioned post.- Performance of essential, perennial duties akin to those of regular employees.- Proof of discrimination, such as juniors or comparables being regularised.- The appointment was irregular but not mala fide or illegal 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2494.

The Landmark Uma Devi (2006) Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 is a pivotal authority. It bars regularisation of illegal appointments made without following proper recruitment procedures. However, it allows a one-time regularisation for irregular appointees who have rendered 10 years of continuous service in sanctioned posts, particularly where equity demands. Courts have clarified that Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions 2025 3 Supreme 26. This principle has been applied in multiple cases where petitioners with 10 to 35 years of service were regularised despite initial irregularities, especially when similarly situated workers had already been absorbed 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2308 and 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2186.

Limits and Denials: When Claims Fail

Despite these favourable rulings, not all contractual employees succeed. Courts reject claims in the following circumstances:

• Purely contractual nature: Contractual employees generally have no right to automatic renewal of their contracts. If the terms of appointment are explicit and no equity is established, regularisation may be denied 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1170 and 2022 8 Supreme 659.
• Part-time or ad-hoc engagement: Employees appointed on a purely temporary or ad-hoc basis, such as fixed-term contract judges, have no vested right to the post 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 308.
• No parity with specific schemes: Contractual workers cannot compare themselves to employees covered by specific schemes, such as the Casual Labourers Scheme, 1993

  Saroj Kumar Nayak vs Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation on India Limited

  .
• Failed recruitment attempts: An employee who has applied for and failed a regular post through an open notification cannot later claim regularisation based on discrimination 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 368.
• Absence of a sanctioned post: Daily wagers or contractual workers in local bodies who are validly terminated without a substantive post cannot claim regularisation 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1323.

As one court observed, petitioners, being contractual employees, cannot seek regularization of their services and cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees 2024 Supreme(JK) 496. Furthermore, the mere fact that an employee is outsourced does not automatically create a right to regularisation, especially if the outsourcing is found to be a genuine arrangement.

Procedural Safeguards and Government Policies

Even when regularisation is not automatic, authorities must follow minimal procedural safeguards. The denial of benefits without notice or an opportunity to be heard can be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 493. Some state governments have also issued circulars and policies that direct consideration of contractual employees who have served for 5 to 10 years and possess the requisite qualifications 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 484. Importantly, any cancellation of regularisation without a hearing is invalid 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 570.

Key Takeaways for Contractual Employees

1. Gather evidence: Document the length of your service, the nature of your duties, and any instances where comparable employees were regularised.
2. The 10-year threshold: A strong case exists if you have continuous service in a sanctioned post, particularly under the Uma Devi framework.
3. Focus on irregularity, not illegality: Claims are more likely to succeed if your initial appointment was irregular but not a fraudulent backdoor entry.
4. File representations: Approach your employer first, then escalate to the appropriate tribunal or high court if necessary.
5. Discrimination is a powerful argument: Parity claims under Article 14 succeed when you can prove that similarly situated employees have been regularised.

Conclusion

The question of whether a contractual employee can become a regular employee when a comparable employee has been regularised has a nuanced answer. The answer is yes, potentially, especially when the contractual employee has rendered long, continuous service (10 years or more) in a sanctioned post, performs essential duties, and can demonstrate discrimination. Courts are increasingly willing to balance worker equity against recruitment discipline, guided by precedents like Uma Devi. However, the purely contractual nature of the engagement, the absence of a sanctioned post, or failed recruitment attempts can limit such claims. This information is based on judicial precedents and is for educational purposes. Specific outcomes depend on the facts of each case and the applicable jurisdiction.