[2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 585/2025 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872/2017 Jawahar Kala Kendra, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur -302015 Through Its Director General. ----Appellant Versus 1. Sandeep Madan S/o Shri R.K. Madan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 3-Ja-32, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur 302004.(Deceased), 1/1. Babita Madan W/o Late Shri Sandeep Madan, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 3-Ja-32, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur – 302004. 1/2. Chinmaya Madan S/o Late Shri Sandeep Madan, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of 3-Ja-32, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur – 302004. 1/3. Maan Madan (Minor) Late Shri Sandeep Madan, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of 3-JA-32, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur - 302004. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Art, Literature, Culture And Archaeology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratik Jain HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 04/02/2026 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Jawahar Kala Kendra. Earlier an appeal was filed on behalf of the Jawahar Kala Kendra and the State Government together, challenging the order passed [2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-585/2025] by the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2024. While examining the appeal the Division Bench of this Court observed as under: “1. This appeal is misconceived as State and Jawahar Kala Kendra both could not have been joined as co- appellant in one and the same appeal. It is stated by the appellants that State has neither appeared, nor contested the matter before the learned Single Judge. It is also argued that the recommendation for registration was made by Jawahar Kala Kendra but the State is not accepting the same. 2. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to file separate appeals, if so advised.” 2. After the appeals were dismissed as above, the present special appeal (writ) has been filed by Jawahar Kala Kendra, while the State Government has not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The main submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent (deceased writ-petitioner) had not completed ten years as on 10.04.2006 and, therefore, could not have been regularized. The Committee which regularized the other technical staff, was formed in the year 2005. The Screening Committee recommendations for regularization could not therefore recommend the name of the petitioner for regularization at that relevant time. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that although the recommendations were made by the appellant for regularization of the services of deceased respondents, it is the State Government to act on the said recommendations to inform the Screening Committee for the purpose and, therefore, the directions could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge [2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-585/2025] for observing that there is a report of the Screening Committee submitted in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is the only Departmental Committee which had made favourable recommendations in favour of the writ petitioner and, therefore, there is an error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. It is an admitted position that a three members Departmental Committee had recommended for regularization of services of the deceased-petitioner w.e.f. 28.05.2014, however, formal regularization was not done. Resultantly, non-appellant-deceased writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, the writ-petitioner expired and his Legal Representatives were taken on record. 8. Learned Single Judge found that the deceased-writ petitioner had worked without break for a period of twenty one years from the year 1997 as Programme Officer (Theater) and, therefore, after considering the favourable recommendations made by the authorities in favour of the petitioner and also considering that earlier the Screening Committee which regularized the other technical staff working in the Jawahar Kala Kendra, the learned Single Judge directed to pass a formal order of regularizing the services of the deceased-petitioner and pay consequential benefits to the legal representatives treating him as regularized w.e.f. 28.05.2014. 9. The position of law relating to regularization was again considered by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Jaggo [2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-585/2025] Vs. Union of India: 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has held 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-585/2025] labelled 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." [2026:RJ-JP:5143-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-585/2025] 10. We had also asked the appellant to file an additional affidavit with regard to the nature of the post which the deceased respondent was holding. In an additional affidavit which has come on record, there is existing post of Programme Officer (Theatre) which was sanctioned and was part of the non-plan budget since 14.06.1991 carrying pay-scale Rs.2200-4000. 11. Considering the affidavit, it is thus apparent that the deceased respondent was holding permanent substantive post which was existing under the non-plan budget head. Therefore, there was no occasion not to consider the candidature of the deceased respondent for regularization. The directions issued by the learned Single judge therefore cannot be said to be unjustified in directing for deemed regularization of services. 12. The additional submission made by the learned counsel for the Jawahar Kala Kendra that the concerned person should have been faced the Screening Committee is wholly misconceived. 13. Considering that the writ-petitioner has already expired, there was no occasion for direction to pass such order of asking the appellants to call the petitioner for screening. 14. The present appeal being misconceived is accordingly dismissed with direction to implement the order as expeditiously. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RIYA/3