Prolonged contractual engagement on perennial work mandates objective consideration for regularization as a constitutional employer obligation.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on a contractual basis on August 10, 2007, in the Office of the Block Education Officer, Marwahi.

Having worked continuously for over 18 years, the Petitioner sought regularization of his services and submitted a representation to Respondent No. 1 on May 16, 2025, which remained pending.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the Petitioner was not covered under the Circular dated March 5, 2008, regarding the regularization of daily wage or temporary employees.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his representation and regularize his services with consequential benefits.

1. Whether the State is justified in continuing the Petitioner’s services on a contractual basis for over a decade while denying consideration for regularization.

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to consider the Petitioner’s pending representation in light of recent Supreme Court mandates on "ad-hocism".

The Court relied on the foundational principles of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) regarding the regularization of employees who have completed ten years of service.

It applied Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, which addressed the claim of regularization for those completing a decade of service.

It applied Jaggo v. Union of India, emphasizing that the government should lead by providing stable employment.

The Court cited Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which held that the State cannot deny regularization by labels of "contractual engagement" for sanctioned posts held over a decade.

Finally, it applied Dharam Singh v. State of UP, which deprecated "ad-hocism" and held that prolonged insecure employment offends the promise of equal protection under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the Petitioner has been working continuously for more than 18 years as a daily wage/contractual employee.

It rejected the State’s reliance on Premsagar Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that the facts therein involved the discontinuation of services, whereas the current Petitioner remains in service.

Applying the principles from Dharam Singh, the Court reasoned that the long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels corrodes public confidence and constitutes a "conscious method of denial" of dignity.

The Court noted that the State, as a "constitutional employer," has a duty to organize perennial work on a sanctioned footing rather than balancing budgets on the backs of basic-function workers.

Consequently, the Court found that the Petitioner’s length of service necessitated an objective and sympathetic reconsideration of his claim for regularization.

The Court directed the concerned authority to consider and decide the Petitioner’s claim for regularization in an objective and sympathetic manner within a period of four months taking into account the legal standards established by the Supreme Court.