[2026:RJ-JP:908] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 142/2022 Sunita W/o Shri Radhey Shyam, B-58, Dayanand Puri, Kachchi Harizan Basti, Near Samshan Ghat, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent, Mentally Retarded Women And Child Welfare Rehabilitation Home, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Anshul Ranga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Yadav HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. This review petition has been filed by the State mentioning that the petitioner had not worked with the department after 2003. An Attendance Register of 2003 has been shown to this Court which reflects that the attendance of all the employees who were working on part time basis as Class-IV employee was being marked up till March 2003. However, from April 2003 and onwards, there is no attendance marked of any person. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that after 2003, the petitioner continued to perform her [2026:RJ-JP:908] (2 of 5) [WRW-142/2022] duty and was placed under the placement agency. The order, therefore, passed by this Court, does not call for any review. 3. Learned counsel for the State has attempted to submit that the Order passed by this Court would be contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court where the Court has held that persons who have been appointed through placement agencies are not entitled to regularization. However, this Court noticed that subsequent to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Satya Narayan Dhakar Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., DB Special Appeal Writ No. 206/2025 dated 27.02.2025 does not take notice of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735. In Jaggo (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the argument relating to the placement agency and held that action to be exploitative. The Hon’ble Court added that if persons have been working for years together they need to be regularized and placed in the regular pay scale. It would be apposite to quote, the part of the order as under:- “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 [2026:RJ-JP:908] (3 of 5) [WRW-142/2022] 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. 23. ………. 24. ………. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:908] (4 of 5) [WRW-142/2022] 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. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for 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. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” [2026:RJ-JP:908] (5 of 5) [WRW-142/2022] 4. Keeping in view of above, no case for review is made out. The Order passed by the Court should be complied with positively as soon as possible. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. All pending application(s) are also disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ DEEPTA ARORA /2