The Rajasthan High Court has issued interim protection to a contractual medical employee, directing that his services not be discontinued until further orders. The order underscores the court's concern over systemic exploitation of temporary workers through outsourcing arrangements, aligning with the Supreme Court's recent stance in Jaggo v. Union of India.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The appellant, Richhpal Singh, is a contractual employee engaged through Goranchal Services Pvt Ltd (respondent No. 6) as a Junior Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Chhapar, District Churu. His engagement was pursuant to an outsourcing arrangement by the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Department.
Key Facts
- The appellant was engaged on a contractual basis through a placement agency, Goranchal Services Pvt Ltd, which provided medical staff to the state health department.
- The appellant's role involved duties identical to regular employees in the Community Health Centre, Chhapar.
- Despite performing essential, recurring, and integral functions, the appellant was classified as a temporary worker without access to regular employee benefits.
- The appellant's services were sought to be terminated by an order dated 27.10.2018, which he challenged before the High Court.
Procedural History
- The appellant filed a Special Appeal before the Rajasthan High Court (SAW No. 849/2026) seeking quashing of the termination order and regularisation of his services.
- The appeal was listed for hearing on 23.07.2026, where the court issued notice to the respondents and granted interim protection against termination until the next date.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Quashing of the termination order dated 27.10.2018.
- Regularisation of his services as a regular employee of the state health department.
- Continuity of service for post-retiral benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state's outsourcing of medical staff through a placement agency could be used to deny regular employment and post-retiral benefits to employees performing functions identical to regular staff.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), particularly paragraphs 25 and 28, to argue that:
- Outsourcing arrangements were being used as a shield to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.
- Temporary employees performing essential roles were being deprived of dignity, security, and benefits.
- The practice of outsourcing to replace exploited workers perpetuated systemic exploitation.
The counsel submitted that the appellant's case mirrored the concerns highlighted in Jaggo, where the apex court had deprecated such practices and directed regularisation of services.
For the Respondent
The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, accepted notice on behalf of the state and its health department. No substantive counter-arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondents at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India, which had extensively discussed the exploitation of temporary employees in government institutions. The apex court had highlighted several systemic issues:
- Misuse of "temporary" labels to classify employees performing essential roles.
- Arbitrary termination without cause or notice.
- Denial of career progression, basic rights, and benefits such as pension, provident fund, and health insurance.
The Supreme Court had held that such practices undermined the principles of natural justice and subjected workers to constant insecurity. It had directed the regularisation of services of temporary employees performing functions identical to regular staff.
The High Court observed that the appellant's case fell squarely within the concerns raised in Jaggo. The appellant was performing medical duties at a community health centre, a role integral to the functioning of the health department. His classification as a temporary employee through an outsourcing arrangement did not absolve the state of its obligations.
"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."
The court further noted that the state's reliance on outsourcing to provide essential medical services could not be used to deny employees the benefits and security they would be entitled to as regular staff. The practice of outsourcing was deprecated as a shield to bypass obligations.
The Verdict
The Rajasthan High Court issued the following directions:
- Notice was issued to Goranchal Services Pvt Ltd (respondent No. 6), returnable within four weeks.
- The appellant's services were protected from termination until the next date of hearing.
- The court directed that the appellant's services not be discontinued till the next date.
The substantive relief of regularisation and quashing of the termination order was left for adjudication on merits in subsequent proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Outsourcing Cannot Defeat Statutory Obligations
- Government institutions cannot use outsourcing arrangements to classify employees performing essential roles as temporary workers.
- Employees engaged through placement agencies for recurring, integral functions must be treated as regular employees for the purpose of service conditions and post-retiral benefits.
Protection Against Arbitrary Termination
- Temporary employees performing functions identical to regular staff are entitled to protection against arbitrary termination.
- Courts are increasingly scrutinising outsourcing arrangements to ensure they do not become a tool for exploitation.
Continuity of Service for Retiral Benefits
- Even if regularisation is not immediately granted, temporary employees are entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of calculating post-retiral benefits.
- Denial of such continuity amounts to a denial of fundamental rights and benefits.
