In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the failure to regularize the service of a clerk who had worked for over ten years in a government department amounted to a violation of constitutional principles, specifically those enshrined under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment). The case highlighted the importance of ensuring fair treatment for employees who have served for a long duration in public service, and it underscored the need for adherence to principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in employment practices.
The appellant in this case, a clerk employed in the government sector for over ten years on a contractual or temporary basis, had petitioned the High Court seeking regularization of his service, arguing that his long and continuous service should have entitled him to be considered for permanent employment. Despite his long tenure and the absence of any adverse remarks regarding his work performance, his request for regularization was denied, leading to the legal challenge.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a clerk employed by a government department in Jharkhand, had been working continuously in a temporary capacity for over ten years. Throughout his service, he had been performing his duties with competence, and no disciplinary action or complaints had been raised against him. However, despite his prolonged and continuous service, he was not regularized, and his status as a temporary or contractual employee remained unchanged.
In the absence of any written communication or formal explanation, the clerk filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court, seeking regularization of his service. His counsel argued that he had been working for more than a decade, performing duties equivalent to those of regular employees, and was entitled to be regularized under the law. The petitioner cited the constitutional guarantees of equality and protection from discrimination, stating that his continued temporary employment was unjust, especially since he had been performing the same tasks as a regular employee.
Court's Observations
In its deliberations, the Jharkhand High Court carefully examined the facts and the legal framework governing employment in the public sector. The Court noted that the appellant had served for more than ten years in a continuous, uninterrupted manner, and had performed duties that were no different from those of regular employees. The Court emphasized that long and continuous service in a government department, in the absence of any disciplinary issues, should be seen as a strong factor favoring regularization.
The Court observed that the failure to regularize employees who had rendered long and dedicated service violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court referred to various precedents, which established that employees who had worked for a long duration on temporary or contractual terms and whose services had been continuously required, had a legitimate expectation of being regularized after a reasonable period.
Legal Basis for Regularization
The Jharkhand High Court cited several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India and other High Courts, which reinforced the principle that long and continuous service in a public office creates an expectation of regularization. The Court specifically referred to the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, in which the Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees who had been working for a prolonged period in a public office had the right to be considered for regularization if they were performing the same duties as regular employees.
The Court also referred to G.B. Mahajan v. Union of India, where it was held that employees who had served for a long period in temporary positions, without any break in service, should not be treated arbitrarily, and should be regularized as soon as possible, especially if their work was of a permanent nature.
The principle that temporary and contractual employees who have rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for a certain period cannot be kept in an ad hoc capacity indefinitely was reiterated in the Court's analysis. The Court acknowledged that while the employer (in this case, the state government) had the discretion to regulate appointments and employment, it must do so within the boundaries of fairness, equality, and justice.
Constitutional Violation: Articles 14 and 16
The Court held that the failure to regularize the appellant’s service was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, while Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court observed that the continued denial of regularization despite the appellant's long service created an unequal and discriminatory situation, especially when compared to regular employees performing the same duties.
The Court highlighted that the appellant, after serving for such a long period, had developed a legitimate expectation of being considered for regularization. By continuing to treat the appellant as a temporary employee without offering any clear justification, the state government had failed to provide equal treatment, which amounted to discrimination. The Court noted that such an arbitrary denial of regularization not only violated the appellant’s rights but also went against the principles of fairness and equality that are fundamental to public service.
The Court also referred to the fact that public employment should be governed by fair and transparent procedures. If an employee is working in a government department for an extended period and is performing the same work as regular employees, the refusal to regularize their service raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process.
Directions and Conclusion
In light of these observations, the Jharkhand High Court directed the government to take immediate steps to regularize the appellant’s service in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The Court noted that the appellant’s long and continuous service, coupled with his satisfactory performance, should entitle him to be treated as a regular employee, and there was no valid reason for the state to continue treating him as a temporary or contractual worker.
The Court ordered that the appellant’s case should be reviewed within a specified time frame, and appropriate action should be taken to ensure that his service is regularized without further delay. The Court also directed the state to pay the appellant his arrears of salary, which would have been due if he had been regularized earlier.
This judgment serves as a reminder to government authorities and employers that employees who have served in a temporary or contractual capacity for extended periods should not be kept in such positions indefinitely. It reaffirms the principles of fairness, justice, and equality in public employment and reinforces the idea that the right to regularization after long service is not merely a procedural formality, but a constitutional right.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court’s ruling marks a significant step in protecting the rights of temporary and contractual employees in the public sector, emphasizing that no employee can be denied regularization if they have served in the same capacity as regular employees for an extended period. The decision not only upholds the constitutional rights of the appellant but also ensures that public employment practices remain just, fair, and transparent.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.