Preetibala Tamarkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

"10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization/ absorption on the post of Assistant Professor as a one-time measure, in accordance with law, and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding regularization of employees who have rendered long years of service against sanctioned posts.

10.b Direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners and not to fill up the posts presently held by the petitioners by regular recruitment or otherwise, till the case of the petitioners for regularization is duly considered.

10.c Direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in service with the same duties and responsibilities till a final decision regarding their regularization is taken.

10.d Grant any other relief, including interim relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Learned State counsel submits that claim of petitioners is for regularization/ absorption of petitioners in service, however, from the documents enclosed along with writ petition it is not reflecting that petitioners have ever approached to the competent authority by submitted application making prayer as prayed in this writ petition.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for petitioners submits that at this stage, petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to submit fresh comprehensive representation before appropriate authority(ies) raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and direction be issued to the concerned authorities to take decision on representation of petitioners at the earliest within specified time frame.

Learned counsel for State does not oppose limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners.

Claim as raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as contractual employee/ ad-hoc employees, on the post of Guest Faculty, for more than about 14 years.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

Taking into consideration that the petitioners are engaged as contractual employee since 2012 and 2009, 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 petitioners for regularization of their 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 petitioners to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, 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 petitioners has completed more than 10 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.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.