Long-term extract of regular labour under temporary labels constitutes arbitrary state action and necessitates regularization.

The petitioner was appointed as an Orientation & Mobility Instructor at the Composite Regional Centre (CRC) for Persons with Disabilities, Sundernagar, on a contractual basis in 2005 following a public advertisement and selection process.

His services were extended continuously for 17 years, during which he received annual increments, MACP benefits, and pay revisions under the 2016 Rules.

In 2020, internal communications to the Prime Minister’s Office listed his post as part of the "regular sanctioned strength".

On September 20, 2022, the respondents issued a non-speaking order terminating his services without assigning any reason.

The petitioner challenged this termination, seeking reinstatement and regularization.

The Court applied the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding non-arbitrariness in State action.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which held that long-term extraction of labor under temporary labels for perennial work is improper.

Dharam Singh v. State of H.P. (2025), which characterized the State as a "constitutional employer" that cannot prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts for recurring functions.

Furthermore, the court applied the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation" as discussed in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), distinguishing between "illegal" appointments and "irregular" appointments made through due process.

The Court observed that the petitioner was recruited through a valid selection process against a sanctioned post, not through "back-door entry".

The fact that he served for 17 years and received benefits like MACP evidenced the "permanency" of the post.

The Court found the termination order to be a "non-speaking order" that failed to justify why an employee with an unblemished record was suddenly "no longer required".

By applying recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reasoned that the State cannot exploit employees by keeping them on contract in perpetuity for work that is integral to the organization.

The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the contractual label precluded rights, noting that the State’s conduct in granting increments and listing the post as "regular" in official reviews created a legitimate expectation of continued service.

The Court quashed the termination order dated September 20, 2022.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and ordered the regularization of his services prospectively from the date of the judgment with all consequential benefits.