The Chhattisgarh High Court has reinforced the principle that prolonged temporary employment, particularly beyond a decade, triggers a legitimate expectation of regularization under constitutional and labor rights frameworks. This judgment provides critical guidance to state departments on their obligation to transition long-serving daily wage workers into permanent roles, aligning with evolving standards of fair labor practice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kamlesh Kumar Barman, has been working as a Computer Operator on a daily wage basis since 2014 - accumulating over 11 years of continuous service in the Forest and Climate Change Department of Chhattisgarh. Despite performing duties integral to departmental operations, he has never been absorbed into the permanent establishment. He seeks regularization on the grounds of prolonged service and in light of binding Supreme Court rulings on similar cases.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking:
- Direction to consider his case for regularization under Circular dated 05/03/2008
- Inclusion of seniority in regularization decisions
- Regularization to be made effective from the date his juniors were regularized
At no stage did the petitioner seek immediate appointment; instead, he requested permission to submit a fresh representation for consideration by the authorities.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought no immediate relief but requested the Court to permit submission of a representation and direct the respondents to decide it expeditiously, in accordance with law and precedent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a daily wage employee with over ten years of continuous service is entitled to have his case for regularization considered in light of binding Supreme Court directives, even in the absence of a formal vacancy or recruitment notification.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others (2018 SCC L&S 472), which held that employees serving beyond ten years in roles essential to public function deserve regularization. He also cited Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), emphasizing that prolonged temporary employment violates labor dignity and exposes the state to legal and moral liability. He argued that the petitioner’s service was uninterrupted, public-facing, and indispensable.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the prayer on merits. The Additional Advocate General conceded that the petitioner’s request was limited to seeking permission to file a representation and that the authorities should be directed to consider it expeditiously. No substantive legal defense was mounted against the principle of regularization after ten years.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of regularization at this stage, recognizing that the petitioner had wisely refrained from pressing for an immediate order of appointment. Instead, it focused on the legal obligation of the State to act fairly and in accordance with precedent.
"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."
The Court explicitly adopted the reasoning in Jaggo, affirming that the State must lead by example in upholding labor rights. It noted that the petitioner’s service span exceeds the ten-year threshold established in Narendra Kumar Tiwari, thereby triggering a duty to consider regularization. The Court emphasized that procedural fairness demands that such claims be evaluated on their merits by the appropriate authority, not dismissed on technical grounds.
The Court further held that while it cannot mandate regularization without a recruitment policy or vacancy, it can - and must - compel a meaningful, time-bound consideration of the claim.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for regularization expeditiously, within four months of its submission, in accordance with law and the principles laid down in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Jaggo. No immediate appointment was ordered, but the duty to consider was firmly established.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Representation Must Be Given Meaningful Consideration
- Practitioners must now ensure that representations from long-term daily wage workers are treated as substantive claims, not bureaucratic formalities
- Authorities cannot delay, ignore, or dispose of such representations through generic replies
- Failure to decide within a reasonable time may invite contempt proceedings or writs for non-compliance
Ten Years Is the De Facto Threshold for Regularization
- The Court’s reliance on Narendra Kumar Tiwari confirms that 10 years of continuous service creates a legitimate expectation
- This applies even without a formal recruitment policy, if the role is permanent in nature
- Departments must audit their workforce to identify employees nearing or exceeding this threshold
State Entities Must Lead by Example
- The citation of Jaggo elevates the principle from mere policy to constitutional obligation under Article 21
- Public departments can no longer justify long-term casualization as administrative convenience
- Legal challenges against prolonged temporary employment will now be viewed as legitimate assertions of labor dignity
