Authorities must expeditiously decide regularization claims of employees with over ten years’ service under Supreme Court precedent.

The petitioner, Kaleem, was working as a Physiotherapist at Late Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya, Raigarh, on a contractual/daily-wage basis.

He claimed to have completed more than ten years of continuous service against a sanctioned and vacant post of Physiotherapist.

He submitted a representation dated 28 July 2026 to the Commissioner, Medical Education, which was also forwarded through the Dean on 31 July 2026, seeking regularization of his services.

The representation remained undecided. The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition seeking regularization, or alternatively, a direction for consideration of his representation.

1. Whether the petitioner, who claimed to have completed more than ten years of continuous contractual/daily-wage service against a sanctioned and vacant post, was entitled to seek regularization of his services.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim for regularization in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning long-term temporary, daily-wage, and contractual employment.

The Court relied on Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, concerning claims for regularization by temporary or daily-wage employees who had completed ten years of service.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which emphasized the obligation of government departments to provide fair and stable employment and criticized the prolonged use of temporary engagement for integral functions.

In Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, SLP (C) No. 30762 of 2024 and connected matters, the Supreme Court held that continuing employees for more than a decade on sanctioned posts under the label of contractual engagement, while denying consideration for regularization, was unjustified and directed regularization in the circumstances of those cases.

The Court further referred to Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, which deprecated governmental “ad-hocism,” outsourcing, and informalized recruitment practices that perpetuate precarious employment, and emphasized fairness, transparency, and constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the petitioner had asserted more than ten years of continuous service and had already approached the competent authorities through a representation seeking regularization.

Having regard to the cited Supreme Court authorities concerning prolonged temporary or daily-wage employment, the Court considered it appropriate for the competent authorities to examine the petitioner’s claim rather than leave the representation undecided.

The Court did not itself conclusively determine the petitioner’s eligibility for regularization; instead, it directed that the claim be considered in accordance with law, while specifically requiring the authorities to take into account the petitioner’s service exceeding ten years and the applicable Supreme Court decisions.

If such representation is submitted, the authorities must consider and decide it in accordance with law, keeping in view the petitioner’s completion of more than ten years of service and the Supreme Court’s decisions on regularization of daily-wage and temporary employees.

The decision was to be taken expeditiously, preferably within four months from receipt of the representation.