Continuous contractual engagement for decades on perennial work mandates regularization, as artificial service breaks cannot deny model employer obligations.

The petitioners were appointed as teachers (PRT, TGT, and PGT) by the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) on a contractual basis between 2002 and 2005 following various advertisements and selection processes

Despite serving for over 20 years on sanctioned and vacant posts, their services remained contractual

The Corporation periodically issued technical breaks in service, such as during summer vacations, and subsequently re-engaged them

Several petitioners sought regularization following a 2016 Division Bench order in LPA No. 216 of 2008, which modified a previous restriction on regularization

the respondent-Corporation rejected their representations via impugned orders dated 27.09.2016 and 10.01.2017, arguing that the engagement was day-to-day and that vacancies would now be filled via outsourcing or open advertisement

1. Whether the petitioners, having completed over 20 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts, are entitled to regularization of their services

2. Whether the technical breaks in service (e.g., summer vacations) and the label of "contractual employee" preclude a claim for regularization under the Constitution

3. Whether the writ petitions are barred by the principle of delay and laches given the impugned orders were passed in 2016/2017

The Court primarily applied the constitutional principles of Articles 14, 16, and 21 regarding fair employment and the duty of the State as a "Constitutional Employer"

Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), which held that long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels offends the promise of equal protection

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), establishing that perennial work cannot be brushed aside by labeling it contractual

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which characterized the power imbalance between the State and a contractual employee as an "unconscionable agreement between a Lion and a Lamb"

Prem Chand v. State of Punjab (2025) regarding the legal insignificance of "artificial breaks" in service

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' 20-year tenure proves the work is permanent and perennial in nature, making them the "backbone" of the institution

The Court dismissed the Corporation’s defense regarding "technical breaks" (summer vacations), classifying them as "artificial and engineered" to prevent the accrual of legal rights, which does not constitute a genuine cessation of employment

Applying the "Constitutional Employer" doctrine, the Court held that the DVC, as a statutory body, cannot balance budgets by exploiting workers on a long-term contractual basis while the work remains perennial

Regarding the Corporation's intent to move to "outsourcing," the Court noted that replacing long-serving employees with outsourced labor for permanent work is not permissible in law

the Court rejected the plea of "delay and laches," stating such technicalities cannot be used to deny regularization to employees who have rendered decades of service

The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten years of service, along with all consequential service benefits

The Court held that the Division Bench's earlier observations in LPA No. 216 of 2008 were misconstrued by the Corporation to deny legitimate claims