1 2026:CGHC:16113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2468 of 2022 1 - Rajendra Singh Verma S/o Mein Singh Verma Aged About 40 Years Contract Training Officer Mechanic (Diesel), R/o Civil Lines Parsahader, Balodabazar, P.O. Balodabazar, Bhatapara District Balodabazar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Skill Development Technical Employment, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. And Post Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal, ITI, Mana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or orders or directions to the NIRMALA RAO 2 respondents to regularize the petitioner in service against the sanctioned vacant post of Training Officer in ITI Mana or in any other ITI. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to pay the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300- Rs. 34,500 including all allowances as is paid to regular Training Officers with all other consequential benefits including arrears. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner including break in service and continue him and continue him in service till the present petition is finally decided by this Hon'ble Court. 10.4 To issue any other appropriate orders or directions to the respondents in the interest of justice in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Training Officer on a contractual basis in the Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) on 16.10.2009 and the contract period has been extended from time to time. She would submit that the experience certificates were issued by the authorities in his favour. She would submit that the contract was renewed and the petitioner was posted to ITI, Mana, Raipur vide order dated 5.4.2015. She would submit that although the petitioner has been working as a Training Officer at ITI Mana since 2015 but till date, his case for regularization has not been considered by the respondent authorities. In support of this contention, she has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and Others, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747, Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 3 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3589. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has no vested right to claim the regularization. He would further submit that since the petitioner is a contractual employee appointed for a fixed period, he holds no right to seek regularization. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has considered the case of the employees for regularization and has passed the following order, which reads as under:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a 4 considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 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 5 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 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 6 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.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) held in para 11 as under:- “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc.” 6. A perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Training Officer in the year 2009 and he is still discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the department. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above- referred matters. Although, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities, his claim has not been considered, therefore, this petition is 7 disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization, keeping in mind the principles laid down in the matters of Jaggo (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). The respondent authorities shall take a decision preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi