For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aasha
Nirmalkar, Advocate
For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit
and appropriate.
10.3 Cost of the petition."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is employee of
respondents and was initially appointed as Assistant Revenue
Inspector (daily wage employee) on 09.03.2005 at Nagar Panchayat,
Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigah, since then he is continuously
performing his duty on the said post. Petitioner has completed more
than 20 years of service, however, he has not been regularized in the
service. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to submit
representation before Respondents No. 2 & 3 raising his grievance and
further direction be issued to the concerned respondents to consider
and take decision on the claim of petitioner for regularization of his
service within specified time frame.
3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioner is not pressing this
writ petition on merits and is only seeking limited prayer of submitting
representation before the competent authority, she is having no
objection.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
5. Claim as raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is
continuously working as daily wage employee, on the post of Assistant
Revenue Inspector, for more than about 20 years.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others
vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472
considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily
wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo vs. Union of India reported
in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the
government departments to lead by example in providing fair and
stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026
has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the
appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under
nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them
consideration for regularization and have further directed for
regularizing the appellants therein, in service.
8. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs.
State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly
deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. Hon'ble Supreme Court also criticized the
practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to
evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and
lawful engagement practices and observed thus:
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and the
State governments) is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring
public functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality
in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary
labels corrodes confidence in public administration and
offends the promise of equal protection. Financial
stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is
not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty
to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State
Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and
how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should
inform every decision affecting those who keep public
offices running.
x x x
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have
learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional
employer, the State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a
sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement,
and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit.
Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence
but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes
livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative
scheme we have set here comprising of creation of
supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent
financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into
outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of grace,
but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India."
9. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is engaged as daily wage
employee since 2005, the circular issued by the State Government
dated 05.03.2008 with regard to regularization of daily wage/temporary
employee and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of
his service as also considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is
disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive
representation before the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and if such a
representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall consider
and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of
service which the petitioner has completed of about 20 years as also
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of
daily wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the
date of receipt of representation.
10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and
direction.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
pwn
