Continuous Public Service on Perennial Tasks Compels Regularization to Prevent Arbitrary Ad-Hocism and State Exploitation

The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer, Class-II, on February 1, 1986, pursuant to Government Resolution dated October 18, 1985.

The appointment was initially ad-hoc/contractual for two years, subject to replacement if a GPSC-selected candidate became available.

However, no GPSC candidate was ever appointed to his post, and the petitioner continued uninterrupted service for nearly 30 years until his superannuation on August 31, 2015.

Despite this long tenure, his services were never regularized. He filed this petition seeking regularization and permanent absorption to secure post-retiral benefits.

The Court relied on the Constitutional Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which permits regularization of "regular" (as opposed to "illegal") appointments if the employee has worked for over 10 years without the cover of court orders.

These cases establish that "ad-hocism" cannot be used by the State as a shield to exploit workers in perennial roles or to evade long-term obligations such as pensions, as the State is a "constitutional employer" bound by Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Integration of Supreme Court precedents including Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025).

The Court observed that the petitioner’s service as a Medical Officer in a Primary Health Center was "perennial in nature".

While the original appointment order contained a clause regarding termination upon the arrival of a GPSC candidate, this eventuality never occurred throughout the petitioner's 29-year career.

The Court reasoned that the State cannot extract regular labor under "temporary labels" for decades to balance budgets or avoid statutory benefits.

Following the logic in Dharam Singh, the Court found that the State's failure to regularize the petitioner despite the continuous need for his services was arbitrary. Since the petitioner met the Umadevi criteria (long service on a sanctioned post without judicial intervention), the Court determined he was entitled to a status of permanence.

The Court held that as a permanent employee, the petitioner is automatically entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, increments, and pensionary benefits under the scheme prevailing at the time he achieved permanent status.

The respondents were ordered to calculate and pay all terminal and retiral arrears within three months.