State must consider regularization of long-term contractual employees performing perennial duties as a constitutional employer.

Eight petitioners, employed as Second Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (A.N.M.) on a contractual basis since September 1, 2015, in District Jashpur, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization of their services

The petitioners alleged that despite performing their duties continuously for over a decade, they remained on contract

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel requested permission to submit a fresh representation to the concerned authorities for a time-bound decision, rather than pressing the petition on merits

The State respondents raised no objection to this limited prayer

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization in a time-bound manner in light of their long-term contractual service and settled judicial precedents?

The Court relied on Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand (2018), which addressed regularization for employees completing 10 years of service

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which held that government departments must provide stable employment for integral roles

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), asserting that the State cannot indefinitely deny regularization to those on sanctioned posts under contractual nomenclature

Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), which defined the State as a "constitutional employer" and deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" and outsourcing as a means to evade regular employment obligations under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India

The Court noted that the petitioners have been engaged since 2015, fulfilling perennial public functions

Integrating the reasoning from Dharam Singh, the Court observed that where work is recurring, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength rather than extracting "regular labour under temporary labels"

The Court emphasized that the State, as a constitutional employer, is held to a higher standard and cannot balance budgets by depriving workers of dignity and security

Since the petitioners sought a procedural remedy (consideration of representation), the Court found that justice would be served by mandating the executive to evaluate the petitioners' service history against the backdrop of these Supreme Court mandates and the State’s own circular dated March 5, 2008

The respondents were directed to consider and decide upon the representation, keeping in view the petitioners' length of service and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding regularization

The Court ordered the authorities to take a final decision expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the representation