State must consider regularizing long-term temporary employees performing perennial duties to prevent prohibited ad-hocism.

The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman at Aadivasi Kanya Aashram, Daldali, District Kabirdham, via an order dated 27.08.1998.

He joined service on 04.09.1998 and has been working continuously for approximately 27 years.

Despite long-term service, his oral requests for regularization under the Works-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1975, were not addressed by the respondents.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the regularization of his services as a permanent employee with all consequential benefits.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of service after completing 27 years of continuous temporary employment in light of the evolving jurisprudence against "ad-hocism".

Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, which addressed the regularization of employees completing 10 years of service.

Jaggo v. Union of India, emphasizing that the State must lead by example and that extended temporary engagement contravenes international labour standards.

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which prohibited the State from denying regularization after a decade of service under the guise of "contractual engagement".

Dharam Singh v. State of UP, which defined the State as a "constitutional employer" under Articles 14, 16, and 21, deprecating the practice of "ad-hocism" and precarious engagement for perennial work.

The court examined the petitioner's 27-year service record and noted that he had been performing integral functions for nearly three decades without permanent status.

Applying the "constitutional employer" doctrine from Dharam Singh, the court observed that the State cannot balance budgets at the expense of those performing recurring public functions.

The court reasoned that long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes public administration and violates the promise of equal protection under the Constitution.

It determined that rather than allowing administrative drift or technicalities to prolong the petitioner's insecurity, the authorities must be compelled to evaluate the claim against fixed timelines and judicial precedents that mandate transitioning perennial workers to a sanctioned footing.

The court ordered the concerned authorities to take a decision on the petitioner’s regularization in accordance with the law and the cited Supreme Court judgments within four months from the receipt of the representation.