Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Solanki vs Commissioner on 25 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
1 WP-6544-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6544 of 2023
DEEPAK SOLANKI
Versus
COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed a direction to regularise his service on the
post of Computer Data Operator and to pay the arrears.
Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed
temporarily as Computer Data Operator on Adhoc/Daily basis for the period
of one month from the date of starts from 1/11/2005 to 30/11/2005 in Janpad
Pnchayat Barnagar Dist. Ujjain by an order No. Kr/S.S.A.05/8 dated
31/10/2005. The order was passed in pursuance of the grant of funds by the
respondent No. 3 by a letter dated 14/09/2005 and thereafter Proceeding and
resolution of the meeting of the Water and Cleaning committee, Barnagar
under the headship of SDO (Revenue) Barnagar andt hereafter petitioner No.
1 started to work under MANREGA from the date01/04/2009. The petitioner
when was working in cleaning mission was approved to pay the wages as per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
2 WP-6544-2023
Collector rate under skilled worker, in a resolution passed by respondent
No.5. The respondent No.5 then also recommended the name of the
petitioner by a letter No. 2017-18/4146 dated 06/12/2017 in a response to the
letter No.7209/MGNERGS-MP-NR-4/2017 dated 12/10/2017 issued by
Respondent No. 1 in tabulate form. Thereafter the petitioner continuously
worked as Computer Data Operator, uninterruptedly at Collector rate on the
sanctioned post with the respondent No.5 without any break.
The State Government GAD Department issued a circular No. F 5-
3/2006/1/3 dated 29/09/2014 in pursuance to the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 in Umadevi Vs. State of
Karnataka by an order dated 10/04/2006, in which proviso was adduced in
clause 5.1 and 5.5 of the earlier circular No. F 5-3/2006-1-3 dated
16/05/2007 but this circular fairly and fully supports the version of the
petitioners in, order to get them regularized. Earlier also the other person
Iqrar Mansoori was regularized in terms of the aforementioned circular and
upon completion of 10 years of his service. Thereafter, petitioner submitted
their various representations before the respondents to get him regularized as
he was eligible as well as already completed more than 10 years of their
uninterrupted services as daily wagers on the post of Computer data
Operator. The last representation was submitted on date 13/02/2023 but
nothing happen still date.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state have filed the reply and
submitted that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent. He had
worked as Data Entry Operator on outsourcing for the year 2005 till 2012. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
3 WP-6544-2023
the year 2012, the decision was taken by the Collector, Ujjain to appoint
such persons who are working as Data Entry Operator through outsourcing
on daily wages and therefore, from 30.04.2012 the petitioner worked on
daily wages. Thus the petitioner is not entitled either for classification or
regularization as per the circular of the government and therefore, by the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023, his case has been rejected.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is not in
dispute that the petitioner is working with the respondent since 2005 for last
more than 20 years and once the petitioner has worked for such long period,
the petitioner's cause ought to have been considered by the respondents
either for regularization or for classification.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer the
judgments in regard to the regularization of the employee who have worked
for a long time. The Apex Court in a recent judgment passed in the case
o f Jaggo Vs. Union of India passed in SLP (c) No.5580/2024 decided on
20.12.2024 held as under :-
"10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions
advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants'
long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond
ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial
appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their
employment must be considered in the light of their sustained
contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no
evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in
performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-
day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission
(CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were
responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive
working environment within the office premises. Their duties
involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations,
and common areas--a set of responsibilities that directly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
4 WP-6544-2023
contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional
functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical
maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor
premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants
performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis
over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two
decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in
nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts.
Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for
these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts
lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants
was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices.
The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the
appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one
set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were
not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular
employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods,
coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable
treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to
manifest injustice and must be rectified.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have
been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the
gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations."
In a case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad passed in Civil
Appeal No.8157/2024, the Apex Court held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
5 WP-6544-2023
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance o n Umadevi
(supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot
claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules
providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated,
Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are
"illegal" and those that are "irregular", the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly,
Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative
engagements persisting for years without the Employer
undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows
no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for
permanent horticulatural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning
more than a decade. Even if certainmuster rolls were not produced
in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite
directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-
established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavours perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in natgure. Morally
and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements
year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At
this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique
of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the
following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and
job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility
to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When
public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning
precedent that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
6 WP-6544-2023
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as "temporary"
or "contractual," even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without
cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state
of constant insecurity, regardless of the
quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
This lack of social security subjects them and
their families to undue hardship, especially
in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
7 WP-6544-2023
In a recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharam
Singh VS. State of UP passed in Civil Appeal NO.8558/2018 decided on
19.08.2025 considered the cases of Jaggo and Shripal and held as under :-
"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra),
outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness
and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently
perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not
"full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does
not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because
of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the
State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases
entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of
those refusals."
The court further criticized the ad-hocism and exploitation of an
employee by continuing him for long time in service without regularization.
The similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the
case of Jairaj Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.22349/2021 and also
in the case of Ravi Shankar Tripathi Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP
No.335/2013 decided on 19.02.2025.
In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case as
mentioned in the earlier paragraphs are reiterated. The petitioner is working
with the respondents since 2005 initially through outsourcing from 2012 for
last about 13 years, on daily wages.
Considering the same, the petition is allowed and the respondents are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28234
8 WP-6544-2023
directed to consider the case of the petitioner either for classification or
regularisation, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and circulars of the
government. The aforesaid excersice shall be carried out within the period of
60 days from the date of communication of the order passed today.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
