Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha And Another vs Arun Kumar Nath And Others on 18 June, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.A. No.408 of 2025

    State of Odisha and another                        ....                 Appellants

                             -Versus-
    Arun Kumar Nath and others                         ....              Respondents


    Advocates appeared in this case:
    For Appellants             : Mr. Saswat Das,
                                 Additional Government Advocate

    For Respondents            : Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, Advocate


                           CORAM:
                 HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                             AND
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment: 18th June, 2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The respondents in the instant appeal have been knocking

the doors of the Court in pursuit of justice founded upon the

concept of equality and the fraternity amongst the homogeneous

class, yet their claim for the right on equalities is a far cry. Some of

the similarly circumstanced persons, who had approached the

Court flagging the identical and the similar issues, received the just

justice, yet the respondents are thriving for an equality right and

equal treatment before the Court of law. It is no gainsaying that the

adherence of rule of equality in a public employment is conceded

as a basic feature of our Constitution as the certainty is a virtue.

The primary object perceived by our forefathers while giving the

Constitution is to bring an equality amongst the citizens of the

country and equal treatment in juxtaposition with the rule of law

and in this regard, the doctrine of equality is, in effect, the heart

and soul of the Constitution.

2. The adherence of the equality principles not only helps the

citizens to reach to a highest potential but also inculcates the sense

of justice at par with the equally circumstanced persons. It is not an

arid principle finding a space in the Constitution but erodes the

differential treatment amongst the equals. It is, thus, a necessary

corollary to the concept of rule of law envisioned by the framers of

the law and bringing the same in reality while occupying a space in

the Constitution.

3. Although the equality is the faith and the aspiration of a

citizenry in a democratic republic, yet its applicability has to be

ensured with great caution and care, and not in an abstract manner.

The equality amongst the equals is the hallmark of the doctrine of

equality as unequals cannot be treated equally in the garb of the

equality principles.

4. The enlightening observation of Justice P. N. Bhagwati in

Pradeep Jain v. Union of India reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654 can

be aptly applied that "equality must not remain mere idle

incantation but it must become a living reality for the large masses

of people." We are conscious that the equality principles should

not be applied with the mathematical precision but on practical

inequalities permeating the sense of an equal treatment vis-à-vis

the rule of law, which is paramount.

5. On the broader concept of equality as embraced in the

Constitution, let us examine the stand of the State in denying the

claim of the respondents in the perspective of the fact that the

persons standing on the same pedestal having bestowed with the

regularization of their contractual services, whether the relief can

be extended to the present writ petitioners/respondents.

6. The genesis of the writ petition filed by the respondents

can be traced from the action of the appellants in declining to

accede to the prayer for regularization of their contractual service

upon successfully completing six years in the post of Gardener.

The respondents/writ petitioners claimed to have been appointed in

the post of Gardener after undergoing the Pre-Gardener Training in

the Department of Horticulture as sponsored candidates from the

respective employment exchanges. The selection was made by the

authority after following the due procedures adopted in terms of

the guidelines issued by the Department in this regard and having

emerged successful therefrom, they completed the training.

7. Despite having successfully completing the training as

Gardener, the respondents/writ petitioners were not given

appointment as an embargo was created by the Finance

Department in recruiting the Gardeners which continued till 2009.

Subsequently, the Agriculture Department, upon due concurrence

of the Finance Department, created 71 contractual posts of

Gardeners vide letter dated 19.05.2010 after abolishing equal

number of posts on the ground of austerity and directed the

Director of Horticulture to fill up 61 numbers of posts of

Gardeners on contractual basis. The said letter postulates that such

contractual appointment would be at a fixed remuneration and the

guidelines so applicable at the relevant point of time though

stipulated a condition that they have to serve the Department for

three years but with the rider that the same cannot be construed as

a guarantee for appointment.

8. Apropos the said letter, the respondents/writ petitioners

were appointed as Gardeners out of 61 posts earmarked for the

persons who have undergone the said Pre-Gardener Training in

terms of the requisition having made to the respective employment

exchanges and the remaining posts were kept to be filled up upon

an open advertisement. It is pertinent to record that the

Administrative Officer of the Department of Horticulture made a

communication to the State Government that the appointment of

61 numbers of Gardeners is strictly in terms of the procedures

outlined in the said guidelines and a strict adherence has been

ensured.

9. Subsequently, a Notification dated 17th September, 2013

was issued by the General Administration & Public Grievance

Department followed by a Resolution dated 16th January, 2014 in

relation to the regularization of the contractual employees, but the

benefit thereunder has been motivatively not extended to the

respondents/writ petitioners though they fulfill all the conditions

and the norms provided therein.

10. One of the conditions enshrined in the above mentioned

notification that upon completion of six years of service on

contractual basis, the services will be regularized, has been

reiterated in a subsequent G.A. Department Notification dated 12th

November, 2013.

11. Perceiving the denial of the claim for regularization of

their services, the writ petition was filed which came to be

disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the very

first day without inviting any counter affidavit from the appellants

upholding the contention of the respondents/writ petitioners by

directing regularization of their service in terms of those

notifications as well as a judgment rendered by a single Bench of

this Court in case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash v. State of Odisha &

others [W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020, decided on 9th September,

2021], which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.A. No.777 of 2021 and batch on 12th April, 2023 [reported at

2023 (I) ILR-CUT 906].

12. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the

respondents/writ petitioners was allowed by the learned Single

Judge taking into account the judgment of the coordinate Bench as

well as the appellate Court on the ground of parity as well as

equality. In terms of the leave having been granted by the Division

Bench, the counter affidavit was filed by the appellants which

upon a meaningful reading thereof does not appear to have

contained any statement dealing with the averments made in the

writ petition. The said counter affidavit was filed in a truncated

manner disclosing the stand of the appellants which is basically

founded upon the assertion that the guidelines for selection of a

Gardener-Trainee does not guarantee any employment after

successful completion of the training.

13. At the very outset, we must record that the

respondents/writ petitioners have specifically pleaded in the writ

petition that the respondents standing on the same footing as that

of the similarly circumstanced persons must be treated equally;

more particularly, when the writ petition filed by such persons was

allowed directing regularization of their contractual services and

the order was affirmed by the appellate Court. The pleading plays

an important role in an adversarial system in pursuit of

adjudication of the rival contentions. The doctrine of non traverse

has been recognized in the legal parlance and assumes its

importance in the event, the same is not dealt with expressly as

opposed to evasive denial. It is a cardinal principle of law that the

defense by way of counter affidavit must contain the averments in

relation to the statement of facts made in the writ petition which

appeared in the instant case to have been done in a casual manner.

14. Be that as it may, since the learned Single Judge proceeded

to decide the writ petition on merit taking into consideration the

stand taken by the appellants in the counter affidavit, we feel it

prudent to decide the points on merit.

15. The pith and substance of the defense taken by the

appellants before the writ Court is that mere selection for a Pre-

Gardener Training does not confer indefeasible right of

employment after its successful completion and, therefore, the

claim of regularization is not tenable in the eye of law. It is beyond

cavil of dispute that the guidelines were issued for the selection of

Gardener Trainees containing exhaustive provision for selection

which included the test to be conducted for 100 marks.

16. The respondents/writ petitioners were selected upon

adherence of the mandate provided in the said guidelines and

successfully completed the said training programme. Though the

appellants have taken a shelter that such trainees would not be

construed as a guarantee for employment, but the further condition

was imposed that after successful completion, the said trainees

have to serve the Department for at least three years together with

the consequences on failure to do so, the stipend so paid during the

training period shall be refunded.

17. Obviously, at the time of selecting the persons the strict

compliance of the terms of the procedures were adhered to in this

regard; there was 71 numbers of sanctioned posts of Gardeners in

different Departments of the Directorate of Horticulture which was

subsequently abolished and converted into contractual appointment

at a consolidated remuneration to meet the immediate exigencies.

It would be pertinent to note that the communication made to the

Principal Secretary to the Government in the Agriculture and

Farmers' Empowerment Department on 25th April, 2017, where in

terms of a resolution dated 17th September, 2013 taken by the G.A.

Department in relation to the regular appointment of a contractual

employee on completion of six years of service in the said

communication, it was indicated that since several Gardeners have

already completed six years having appointed upon following the

due procedures of appointment, a formal order of regular

appointment be issued under Group-C & D Posts (Contractual

appointment Rules, 2013).

18. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid stand taken by the

Government as well as the Department leaves no ambiguity that

these contractual appointees upon completing six years of

continuous service are entitled to be appointed on a regular post.

On an identical issue, relating to the engagement of Data Entry

Operators in various Tahasils of Cuttack district, the learned Single

Judge of this Court directed authorities to decide the claim of

regularization. Several notifications issued by the G.A. Department

by way of resolution as highlighted hereinbefore were taken into

consideration and the order for regularization was passed with the

following observations.

"27. Considering from all angles, since the petitioners have already rendered more than 6 years of service, they are deemed to be regularized. Thereby, only formal order of regularization has to be issued in

consonance with the resolution dated 17.09.2013 passed by the authority. Otherwise also they have completed ten years of service, having been appointed by the authorities against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection, and continued by them voluntarily, their services are to be regularized in terms of judgments of the apex Court, as discussed above. Furthermore, when services of similarly situated persons have been regularized in other departments, the petitioners cannot be deprived of such benefit on the caprice and whims of the authority concerned and such action of the State and its instrumentalities cannot sustain in the eye of law.

28. In view of the factual and legal aspects, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the services of the petitioners should be regularized by issuing formal letters of regularization in terms of the G.A. Department letter dated 17.09.2013, as they have already completed 6 years of service, on being appointed against sanctioned posts by following due procedure of selection. Otherwise also they having completed more than ten years of service, on being employed and continued by the authorities, in terms of the judgments of the apex Court, as discussed above, their services are also to be regularized. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties to regularize the services of the

petitioners and grant them all consequential service and financial benefits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment."

19. The order of the learned Single Judge in the above noted

decision was assailed before the Division Bench in W.A. No.777

of 2021 along with other batch of writ appeals. The Division

Bench, after taking into consideration several judgments, including

the Constitution Bench decisions of the apex Court rendered in

case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in

(2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, reported

in 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982, upheld the decision of the learned

Single Judge.

20. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate

(AGA) appearing on behalf of the appellants-State vociferously

submits that the judgment rendered in case of Patitapaban Dutta

Dash (supra) has no manner of application in view of the findings

returned by the Constitution Bench in case of Umadevi (3) (supra).

He emphatically argues that the moment a person accepts the

engagement on contractual basis, he accepts the same with the

open eyes and cannot later on assert that his appointment is

required to be regularized. He further submits that the appointment

and/or engagement as a contractual or a casual worker without

following the proper selection procedure does not alleviate the

theory of the legitimate expectations nor does it confer any right of

regularization in the public employment.

21. Mr. Das further submits that the apex Court, in case of

Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (Civil Appeal Nos.5689-5690 of

2021, decided on 7th October, 2021) reported at (2021) 6 SCR

1158, held that the appointment made contrary to the law declared

in Umadevi (3) (supra) does not confer any right of regularization.

He further submits that any appointment de hors the Rules is

regarded as 'illegal' and not 'irregular'. He relies upon a judgment

of the Supreme Court in case of Managing Director, Ajmer

Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Chiggan Lal, reported in (2022)

19 SCC 662 for the proposition that the plea of regularization

whether to be allowed or not is within the competence of an

employer and, therefore, such decision is unsusceptible to be

interfered with.

22. Lastly, Mr. Das has relied upon another judgment of the

Supreme Court in case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639 to buttress the

submissions that the law declared in case of Umadevi (3) (supra) is

required to be strictly adhered to and the Court should not depart

therefrom.

23. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners

submits that the stand of the appellants is contrary to what was

taken before the learned Single Judge and a new case is sought to

be made out de hors the pleadings. He further submits that the

Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) does

not in absolute terms create an embargo in regularizing the

contractual appointment which has been further noticed and

clarified in subsequent judgments rendered by the apex Court in

Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 2024 INSC 332 and

Jaggo v. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826.

He thus submits that in view of the exposition of law in the above

referred decisions, the contentions of the appellants are

unacceptable and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Single

Judge does not warrant any interference.

24. He further submits that one of the Gardeners, namely,

Kabindranath Sahoo approached this Court by filing a writ petition

which was allowed and the said judgment having stand on the

equality principle invites identical decision to be taken by the

Court. He, therefore, submits that the writ petitioners/respondents,

standing on the same pedestal that of Kabindranath Sahoo, should

be treated in a similar fashion on the ground of parity.

25. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in

case of Umadevi (3) (supra) which is primarily founded upon the

notion of illegal appointments and irregular appointments. The

ratio of the judgment has been considered in a subsequent decision

and has construed in the perspective of the given facts. There is no

quarrel to the proposition of law that the decision rendered by the

Constitution Bench is binding on the High Court as any departure

therefrom would entail the judgment susceptible to be interfered

with by a higher forum. The ratio of law decided in a judgment is

to be applied in the context of the facts and not in an abstract

manner.

26. All the judgments cited by learned counsel for the

respective parties as referred hereinbefore have taken into account

the ratio of Umadevi (3) (supra) and its applicability to the given

facts. In Ilmo Devi (supra), the apex Court was considering the

claim of regularization of service of contingent paid part-time

Sweepers who were permitted to work less than five hours a day in

the Post Office. In the backdrop of the above fact, the apex Court

held that such contingent paid part-time Sweepers, who work less

than five hours a day without following any procedure of selection,

cannot take shelter under the irregular appointment and therefore

not entitled to seek regularization. In paragraph-8.7 of the said

decision, it is held as under:

"8.7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work."

27. In case of Chiggan Lal (supra), the work-charged

employees seek regularization of their posts whose services were

later on regularized upon completion of two years of continuous

service at a pay scale with effect from a particular date on the basis

of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The writ

petition was filed by them claiming the pay scale to be reckoned

from an anterior date on the ground that they should be treated at

par with the other employees.

28. In the background of the aforesaid fact, the apex Court

held that the date of regularization and the grant of pay scale is the

prerogative of the employer/screening committee and the parity

cannot be extended when such regularization is made at different

point of time.

29. The judgment rendered in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey

(supra) relates to engagement of a Supervisor on a daily-rated

basis under a project of the State Water Resources Department of

Madhya Pradesh. Such Supervisor later on claimed regularization

of his service, where the minimum educational qualification

required for the said post was matriculation with mathematics.

Admittedly, the said Supervisor did not possess such qualification.

The apex Court, relying on the decision rendered in Umadevi (3)

(supra), factually found that the initial appointment was done by

an authority who is not a competent authority and there was no

post on which such appointment was made.

30. The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the appellants do

not come to the aid of the appellants on disparity of the facts or the

special facts involved therein. It is no longer res integra that a

difference in fact or an additional fact may invite a different

decision and it is an ardent duty of the Court while applying the

ratio to see the factual parity. See, Union of India v. Arulmozhi

Iniarasu, (2011) 9 SCR 1 (Pr.12)

31. A recent judgment rendered by the apex Court in Vinod

Kumar (supra) is relatable to a temporary appointment to the post

of Accounts Clerk and its continuance in discharging the duties

and functions attributable to the said post till the present, spanning

over a period of 25 years. A plea was taken by the Government

that such employment was made under a temporary scheme and

cannot be equated with those posts held by the permanent

employees. The judgment rendered in Umadevi (3) (supra) was

cited before the Bench and upon noticing it was held as under:

"7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"

appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointment) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 :

(1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to

and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles

of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."

32. Subsequently, in case of Jaggo (supra), the apex Court,

while dealing with the case of the engagement of a person by

Central Water Commission on part time/ad hoc basis as Safaiwala,

held in paragraphs 10 to 13 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 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."

33. The apex Court in the above noted decision unequivocally

held that the decision rendered in Umadevi (3) (supra) should not

be construed having intended to penalise the employees who

rendered long years of service fulfilling the ongoing and necessary

functions of the State or its instrumentalities. It is further observed

that the said judgment seeks to prevent the backdoor entries and

illegal appointments and does not impinge upon the appointments

though termed as temporary but akin to a regular employee in the

following:

"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have

accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."

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, 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."

34. The cumulative effect of the judgments as referred to

above leaves no ambiguity that labelling the appointment as

temporary or contractual is not a determinant factor but the nature

of the duties and the jobs and perennity of the service which is

indispensable should also be borne in mind. Admittedly, the writ

petitioners/respondents are still discharging their duties as

Gardener as such duties are indispensable in the Department of

Horticulture and are continuing at present as well. The

appointment was made upon following the due procedure of law as

revealed from the letter of the Director of Horticulture while

seeking formal order of their regularization and the pleadings filed

by the appellants before the writ Court is conspicuously silent

thereupon.

35. It is incongruous to suggest that the specific stipulation of

denial of guarantee in the matter of employment destroys the right

of regularization despite the fact that after successful completion of

the training a bond is required to be executed in the prescribed

form that they would serve the Department for three years with the

adverse consequence of refund of the stipend on failure thereof.

The clause so relied upon by the appellants has to be read as a

whole and not in a piecemeal. Apart from the same, several

notifications issued by the G.A. Department in the year 2013 and

2014 conveys a laudable message that the contractual employees

may come in a regular employment after completion of six years of

service which has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this

Court in Patitapaban Dutta Dash (supra).

36. We cannot overlook the fact that one of the Gardeners,

namely, Kabindranath Sahoo who was appointed along with the

writ petitioners/respondents approached this Court by filing a writ

petition, which was allowed by the Court and, therefore, on the

ground of parity or equality principles, the writ