Long-term ad hoc service cannot be denied regularization through artificial breaks or misclassification as temporary.

The applicant, aged 36, sought regularization of his service as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Bhubaneswar. He was initially engaged through outsourcing agencies from July 26, 2010, to February 2, 2019.

Subsequently, he was engaged directly by the department on short-term contract basis in different spells with intermittent breaks from 2019 until the date of the judgment.

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the applicant’s initial engagement was not through a formal selection process, his service was subject to intermittent breaks, and NIFT Statute 2020 only allowed for the regularization of long-term contract employees, not short-term ones.

1. Whether a contractual employee who has served for a prolonged period (initially through outsourcing and later directly) is entitled to regularization of service despite being labeled as "short-term" or "temporary."

2. Whether the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi can be used by an employer as a shield to deny regularization in cases of long-term "adhocism" and perennial work requirements.

The court primarily applied the principle that prolonged temporary employment for work of a perennial nature constitutes exploitation.

It relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, noting that the latter are eligible for regularization as a one-time measure.

Further, it applied Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024), which held that the essence of employment is determined by the actual course of service over time rather than initial terms.

Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), which cautioned against using Uma Devi as a shield for "adhocism".

The court also invoked Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution regarding the State's duty as a model employer.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had been working continuously since 2010, and the perennial nature of the MTS duties was undisputed.

It reasoned that labeling such essential and recurring roles as "short-term" or "contractual" is often a mechanism to evade long-term obligations.

The court rejected the respondents' technical defense regarding intermittent breaks and the "short-term" label, citing Prem Chand v. State of Punjab (2026), which held that artificial breaks do not reflect a genuine cessation of employment.

By analyzing a series of recent Supreme Court precedents (including Jaggo, Shripal, and Pawan Kumar), the Tribunal concluded that when the State extracts regular labor under temporary labels for decades, it offends the promise of equal protection and necessitates judicial intervention to convert rights into outcomes.

It directed the respondents to issue a consequential order regularizing the applicant's service by following the principles set out in Jaggo, Shripal, and Prem Chand within 90 days of the receipt of the order. All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.