State Must Regularize Contractual Employees Completing Over Ten Years Service as a Constitutional Employer

The four petitioners were appointed to Class-IV posts on a contractual/collectorate rate basis and have continuously performed their duties for over 12 years.

Despite their long tenure, they were not regularized in service according to the State Government's circulars.

The petitioners approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to consider their claim for regularization, citing that they have now crossed the maximum age limit for fresh recruitment under State service rules.

During the proceedings, the petitioners limited their prayer to a request to submit a formal representation to the competent authorities for a time-bound decision.

1. Whether the petitioners, having completed over 12 years of contractual service on Class-IV posts, are entitled to a time-bound consideration of their claim for regularization in light of State circulars and judicial precedents.

State Government’s circular dated 05.03.2008 regarding the regularization of daily wage and temporary employees.

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

Jaggo v. Union of India, emphasizing the state’s duty to provide stable employment and avoid long-term temporary engagements for integral roles.

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Dharam Singh v. State of UP, which deprecated "ad-hocism" and held that the State, as a "constitutional employer," cannot evade regular employment obligations through informal recruitment for perennial work.

The Court observed that the petitioners have been working for more than a decade (12 years) on a contractual basis, performing duties that appear to be of a recurring nature.

By citing Dharam Singh, the Court emphasized that where work is perennial, the administration must reflect this in its sanctioned strength rather than maintaining a culture of "ad-hocism" to balance budgets.

The Court reasoned that prolonged insecurity of employment for those performing basic public functions offends the constitutional promise of equal protection under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to direct the respondents to evaluate the petitioners' service history against the mandatory benchmarks for regularization set by both executive circulars and the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

The Court directed the concerned authorities to take a decision on the claim for regularization within four months of receiving the representation, specifically instructing them to account for the petitioners' 10+ years of service and the legal principles regarding temporary employees established by the Supreme Court.