State Must Consider Regularization of Contractual Employees Serving Over Ten Years as Model Employer

The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-II on a contractual basis on October 3, 2013, following a recruitment advertisement dated October 4, 2012.

He has rendered over 10 years of continuous service under the Respondent department.

Seeking regularization of his services, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 6) on December 31, 2025, based on State Government circulars and judicial precedents.

He approached the High Court seeking a direction for the authorities to act upon his representation in light of established law.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service after completing 10 years of continuous employment on a contractual basis.

2. Whether the Respondent authorities are mandated to consider and decide upon the Petitioner's representation for regularization within a specific timeframe.

The court primarily relied on the landmark judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which directed the State to regularize irregularly appointed employees who have worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts as a one-time measure.

The court applied the State Government Circular dated March 5, 2008, which outlines the procedure for regularizing Class III and IV employees.

Furthermore, the court integrated modern jurisprudence from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), and Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735, which collectively deprecate "ad-hocism," criticize the misuse of temporary labels for perennial work, and emphasize the State's duty as a "constitutional employer" to ensure job security and dignity.

The court examined the Petitioner’s tenure, noting he had surpassed the ten-year threshold of continuous service required for consideration under the Umadevi guidelines.

It noted that while the Umadevi judgment was often used by the State to deny rights, recent Supreme Court rulings clarify that it cannot be "weaponized" to sustain exploitative contractual arrangements for work that is perennial in nature.

The court scrutinized the State’s conduct against Article 14, observing that maintaining employees on a contractual basis for over a decade against sanctioned posts is "manifestly arbitrary".

Since the Petitioner’s representation was pending and the State’s counsel offered no objection to a time-bound direction, the court found that the Respondent must evaluate the Petitioner’s claim against the criteria set by the 2008 Circular and the evolving "model employer" standards established in recent high court and apex court precedents.

The authority is mandated to take this decision in accordance with law and the discussed Supreme Court precedents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

The holding reaffirms that long-term contractual service in perennial roles warrants a formal administrative review for regularization.