### Temporary Employees Serving Over Ten Years Entitled to Consideration for Regularization Under 2008 Policy and Supreme Court Mandates

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Forest Department in 1997 and has served continuously for over 10 years.

Despite his long tenure and a proposal by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 2) including his name at Serial No. 64 for regularization, his case was not considered on the grounds that he was not appointed against a sanctioned vacant post.

The petitioner filed a representation for regularization under the 2008 Regularization Policy, which remained pending with the Deputy Director, Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve (Respondent No. 4).

Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his pending representation and grant consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents are required to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for regularization in light of his continuous service exceeding 10 years.

The Court relied on the 2008 Regularization Policy of the State.

It further applied the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others* (2018), which addressed the regularization of temporary/daily wage employees who completed 10 years of service.

Additionally, the Court cited *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024), which emphasized that government departments must lead by example in providing stable employment and that long-term temporary engagement of integral roles contravenes international labor standards and undermines morale.

The Court observed that the petitioner has been performing his duties continuously for approximately 29 years.

While the state's initial refusal was based on the lack of a sanctioned post, the Court highlighted the evolving jurisprudence from the Supreme Court (notably *Narendra Kumar Tiwari* and *Jaggo*) regarding the rights of long-term temporary employees.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not pressing the petition on merits but was merely seeking a time-bound direction for the disposal of his representation.

Given the integral nature of the work and the duration of service, the Court found it appropriate to direct the administrative authorities to exercise their discretion and apply the law to the petitioner's specific facts.

It granted the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 4.

The Court ordered that if such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority must consider and take a decision in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt.

No specific order for immediate regularization was passed, but a mandate for a speaking order was established.