Government cannot indefinitely deny regularization to workers performing perennial duties in its establishments.

The petitioner, possessing 10+2 qualification, a one-year diploma in Electrical Supervision, and additional diplomas in Steno-Typing and Computer Applications, was engaged in 2005 as a Pump Operator-cum-Electrician at the Indira Gandhi State Sports Complex, Shimla, on an honorarium of ₹2,000 per month.

His honorarium was periodically enhanced to ₹20,000 per month. After more than 17–20 years of continuous service, he sought regularization either as Pump Operator-cum-Electrician or Clerk.

His claim was recommended by the Deputy Director and forwarded to the higher authorities; however, although the Administrative Department supported the proposal, the Finance Department did not concur with it.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had been engaged by the Managing Committee of the Sports Complex through a Personnel Ledger Account, and not by the State Government or the Youth Services and Sports Department. They further argued that no sanctioned post of Pump Operator existed in the Sports Complex.

During the proceedings, the respondents disclosed that the Sports Complex was constructed by the State Government, was managed through a Government-constituted Managing Committee, and required the petitioner’s services as an Electrician-cum-Pump Operator continuously since 1 November 2005.

Whether the petitioner’s engagement by the Managing Committee of a Government-owned Sports Complex disentitled him from seeking regularization by the State authorities?

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s continuous service for approximately 20 years, the perennial nature of his duties, and the recommendations in his favour, refusal to regularize his services was arbitrary and discriminatory?

Whether regularization could be directed against a post requiring creation, notwithstanding the respondents’ objection that no regular post of Pump Operator existed?

The Court relied on the principles concerning long-term contractual and temporary employment stated in Jaggo v. Union of India & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, namely that prolonged and uninterrupted service involving essential, perennial duties cannot be disregarded merely because the initial engagement was labelled part-time or contractual, particularly where the appointment was not shown to be illegal or surreptitious.

It further relied on Dharam Singh & Others v. State of H.P. & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (2025 INSC 998), which emphasized that the State, as a constitutional and model employer, must not perpetually extract regular work through temporary arrangements and must justify any preference for precarious engagement over sanctioned posts consistently with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also considered Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 (2026 INSC 99), recognizing legitimate expectation arising from prolonged contractual service, repeated extensions, satisfactory performance, and continued governmental reliance on the employee’s services.

While referring to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court noted the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and held that the bar against legitimate expectation does not operate absolutely where engagement followed a lawful process of selection.

The Court held that the Sports Complex remained a Government Sports Complex merely because its management was entrusted to a committee constituted under a Government notification.

The petitioner had performed an essential and continuously required function for about two decades, and the respondents’ continued retention of him, periodic enhancement of his honorarium, and favourable recommendations demonstrated the perennial nature of the work.

The existence of regular posts for other operational staff, together with the admitted need for pump-operation services, undermined the respondents’ contention that the petitioner’s work was temporary or unnecessary.

Applying the constitutional-employer principles in Jaggo, Dharam Singh and Bhola Nath, the Court concluded that the State could not avoid its responsibility by relying on the Managing Committee structure, the absence of an existing sanctioned post, or the Finance Department’s non-concurrence.

The prolonged engagement had created a legally relevant expectation of fair recognition, and continued denial of regularization was found arbitrary and discriminatory.

The respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s services as a Pump Operator from the date of filing of the writ petition, with all consequential benefits.

If creation of a post was necessary, the authorities were directed to undertake the requisite steps expeditiously; the creation of the post and regularization, along with consequential benefits, were to operate retrospectively from the date of filing of the petition.

The petition and pending miscellaneous applications were accordingly disposed of.