Denying regularisation to long-serving contractual supervisors while regularising comparable workers violates Articles 14 and 16.

The petitioners were engaged by the State of Jharkhand as Malaria Technical Supervisors (MTS) and Kala-azar Technical Supervisors (KTS) under the Vector Borne Disease Programme, pursuant to advertisements and on contractual terms.

Their contracts were renewed over 14 to 18 years.

The State created 2,150 posts for similarly engaged Multi-Purpose Workers (Male) [MPWs(M)], but did not create corresponding posts for the petitioners.

In an earlier writ petition, the State had stated that the petitioners’ claim for absorption at par with MPWs(M) would be considered after consultation with the Law, Personnel and Finance Departments.

The Court directed a decision in accordance with law; the State’s appeal was dismissed as delayed, and the Supreme Court later directed the State to consider the claim on its merits.

The State rejected the claim by order dated 28 April 2025, citing the contractual nature of the engagements, central funding and absence of sanctioned posts.

The petitioners challenged that order, seeking regularisation or, alternatively, consideration against vacant Malaria Inspector posts.

1. Whether the State’s rejection of the petitioners’ claim complied with the earlier court direction and the State’s undertaking to consider the claim after consultation with the relevant departments.

2. Whether denying the petitioners treatment comparable to MPWs(M), whose posts had been created despite their contractual engagement under the same programme, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the petitioners’ long and continuous service in advertised posts performing perennial work entitled them to regularisation or absorption, notwithstanding the contractual terms and the absence of sanctioned MTS/KTS posts.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution prohibit unequal treatment of similarly situated employees without an intelligible differentia rationally connected to the object sought to be achieved.

An administrative decision affecting employees must provide reasons connecting the material considered with the conclusion, and a direction to consider a claim on its merits requires genuine, objective and reasoned consideration.

The Court applied Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, including its distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and its recognition of a one-time regularisation measure for qualifying long-serving employees appointed against sanctioned posts.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, concerning the unfairness of prolonged temporary employment in roles integral to government functioning, and Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, cited for the creation of supernumerary posts in comparable circumstances.

The Court further held that the State could not depart from its recorded undertaking or rely on the absence of posts where its own inaction had contributed to that circumstance.

The impugned order was cryptic: it did not show that the promised departmental consultations had occurred, did not address the alternative claim concerning vacant Malaria Inspector posts, and did not constitute reasoned consideration on the merits.

The State had created regular-pay-scale posts for MPWs(M), who were engaged under the same programme and whose work was perennial; it offered no reason for treating their supervisors differently.

The petitioners had been selected through advertisements, possessed the prescribed qualifications and had served continuously for 14 to 18 years.

The Court considered the repeated contract renewals evidence that the need persisted, and held that contractual labels, funding arrangements and the State’s failure to create posts could not, in these circumstances, justify the differential treatment.

It concluded that another remand would only prolong the uncertainty and that direct relief was warranted.

It directed the State to create regular or, if necessary, supernumerary MTS/KTS posts and regularise the petitioners against them, at the pay scale payable to Malaria Inspectors; if such posts were not created, the petitioners were to be absorbed against sanctioned vacant Malaria Inspector posts.

Pending completion, their services were not to be disengaged.

The petitioners were granted continuity for seniority and pensionary benefits, with notional pay fixation from their initial appointment but actual monetary benefits only from the judgment date.

The deceased petitioner was to be treated as regularised from the relevant date, with admissible terminal and other benefits released to his legal heir.

The exercise was to be completed within 12 weeks.