Holding

Long‑serving contractual employees who have performed essential, continuous duties for over ten years are entitled to regularisation, and their termination without notice is unlawful, thereby setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders.

Summary

The appellants were employed by the Central Water Commission on part‑time, ad‑hoc contracts as Safaiwalas and a Khallasi from 1993 to 2004, performing essential housekeeping and maintenance functions for more than ten years. After their application for regularisation was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, they were abruptly terminated in October 2018 without notice. They filed a writ petition, which the Delhi High Court dismissed, relying on the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. The Supreme Court examined whether long‑serving contractual workers performing indispensable duties are entitled to regularisation, whether termination without a hearing violated natural justice, and whether the Uma Devi principles apply to irregular but not illegal appointments. The Court held that the appellants’ continuous, essential service transformed their ad‑hoc engagements into de‑facto regular posts, that their termination was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, and that the lower courts erred in focusing on the label of employment. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, quashed the termination notices and directed the respondents to reinstate and regularise the appellants’ services.

Issues considered

The applicability of regularisation principles to long‑serving part‑time/contractual employees performing essential functions in a government establishment.
Whether termination of such employees without notice or a hearing violates principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees of equality.
Interpretation and scope of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi concerning irregular versus illegal appointments.
Whether lack of formal educational qualifications can be a bar to regularisation for employees whose duties do not require such qualifications.
Legality of outsourcing the same work during pendency of judicial proceedings.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment. Headnotes† Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the

Subjects

Service lawRegularization of servicesContractual employeesSecretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma DeviMisinterpretation of Uma DeviEssential function in government establishmentCentral Water CommissionHousekeeping and support functionsLong‑serving employeesPerennial workRegular vacanciesPrinciples enabling regularizationNotice requirementNatural justiceEducational qualificationsOutsourcingIrregular appointmentsEquality under Articles 14 and 16Gig economyInternational Labour OrganizationEmployment stability

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235 : 2024 INSC 1034

Jaggo
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term
serving employees performing essential function in government
establishment.

Headnotes†
Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally
engaged by the Central Water Commission-CWC on part-
time, ad-hoc terms for essential housekeeping and support
functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments –
Appellants sought regularization of their services on the
ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged
against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the
application holding that the appellants not engaged on "regular
vacancies” and their case did not attract the principles enabling
regularization – Thereafter, the services of appellants abruptly
terminated without issuance of any notice – Appellants filed
writ petition – High Court dismissed the same – Correctness:
Held: Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely
by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual –
Essence of their employment must be considered in the light
of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work,
and no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route – Engagement was not sporadic or temporary
in nature; it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities
typically associated with sanctioned posts – Nature of the work
performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning
of the offices – Termination letters issued without prior notice
violated fundamental principles of natural justice – Issuing tenders
* Author
1236 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial
proceedings, despite stay order from the tribunal, revealed lack
of bona fide intentions – Appellants’ consistent performance over
their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization –
Also, the nature of duties the appellants performed does not
inherently mandate formal educational prerequisite – Appellants'
roles were essential and indistinguishable from those of regular
employees – Where appointments not illegal but possibly “irregular,”
and employees had served continuously against the backdrop
of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, 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 ad-hoc
or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization –
Pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and
job security – Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear greater responsibility to
avoid the exploitative employment practices – Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when the
roles are integral to the organization's functioning, contravenes
international labour standards, 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 –
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the
tribunal set aside and termination orders quashed – Constitution
of India – Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 10-28]

Service law – Regularization of services – Judgment in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi’s case – Clarification:
Held: Decision in Uma Devi’s case does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing
and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities – While
the judgment in Uma Devi’s case 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”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1237

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

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’s case 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. [Paras 20, 26]

Case Law Cited
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [2006] 3 SCR 953 :
(2006) 4 SCC 1; Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India &
Ors. [2024] 1 SCR 1230 – relied on.
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) –
referred to.

List of Keywords
Service law; Regularization of services; Contractual employees;
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi’s case; Misinterpretation
or misapplication of Uma Devi’s case; Regularization of services
of long term serving employees; Employees performing essential
function in government establishment; Central Water Commission-
CWC; Essential housekeeping and support functions; Long-
serving employees; Work of perennial nature; Regular vacancies;
Principles enabling regularization; Issuance of notice; Long and
uninterrupted service; Labelling initial appointments as part-
time or contractual; Engagement not sporadic or temporary in
nature; Outsourcing; Long tenures; Appointments not illegal but
irregular; Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service; Misuse
of temporary employment contracts; Government institutions;
Principles of fairness and justice; Exploitative employment
practices; Engaging workers on temporary basis; International
labour standards; Promote job security; Principles of justice and
1238 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

fairness; Denial of legitimate claims of long-serving employees;
Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments; Continuous
and Substantive engagement; Abrupt termination from services;
Termination without show-cause notice; Absence of performance
issues; Discrimination in regularization; Violation of fundamental
principles of contractual employees; Violation of principles
of equality; Gig economy; Detrimental trend of gig economy;
International Labour Organization; ILO’s Multinational Enterprises
Declaration; Exploitation of contractual workers; Betterment of
labour practices.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.6822 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No. 14832 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Udian Sharma, Jaitegan Singh Khurana,
Ms. Akshaya Jebakumar, Manav Mitra, Ms. Anshul Rajora, Kshitij
Mudgal, Mohd. Anas, Akshay Bedi, Ram Lal Roy, Bhuvan Kapoor,
Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Vinayak Sharma, Subham Saxena,
Shubham Saxena, Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Prasenjeet Mahapatra,
Shashank Bajpai, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for the appearing
parties.

Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Vikram Nath, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 08.08.2023 passed
by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of
2018, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by
the appellants and confirmed the order of the Central Administrative
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1239

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi1 dated 17.04.2018 whereby it dismissed
the original application of the appellants seeking regularization of
their services.
3. The appellants before this Court, who were applicants before the
Tribunal originally numbered five. However, the fourth applicant
before the Tribunal has not approached this Court. Therefore, these
appeals are instituted by Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 only. The
sole Appellant in SLP(C) No. 5580/2024 was applicant no. 2 before
the Tribunal whereas the Appellant no. 1, 2 and 3 in SLP(C) No.
11086/ 2024 were Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 respectively before the
Tribunal. For ease of reference and to maintain consistency, they
shall continue to be referred to by their original applicant numbers
as before the Tribunal.
4. The appellants before this Court, being Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3,
and 5 before the Tribunal, were originally engaged by the Central
Water Commission2 on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1
was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a
Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All
three were primarily responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
office premises under the CWC. Applicant No.5, appointed in 2004
as a Khallasi (also discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi),
was entrusted with tasks such as gardening, dusting, and other
ancillary maintenance work. Throughout their engagement, these
individuals performed essential housekeeping and support functions
at CWC establishments, including its offices at Faridabad, ensuring
daily upkeep and contributing to the smooth functioning of the
Commission’s administrative operations.
5. Initially, the appellants sought regularization of their services by
filing Original Application No.2211/2015 before the Tribunal. They
contended that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had
evolved beyond the nominal labels of “part-time” or “contractual” and
that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the
CWC’s operations. They relied on applicable government instructions
and the principle that long-serving employees, engaged against work
of a perennial nature, deserve fair consideration for regularization,

1 Hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”
2 In short, “CWC”
1240 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

provided their appointments were not illegal or clandestine. The
Tribunal, by its order dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants’
plea. It concluded that the appellants were not engaged on what it
considered “regular vacancies,” that they had not completed what it
termed as sufficient “full-time” service (such as meeting a 240-days
per year criterion), and that their case did not attract the principles
enabling regularization. Within ten days after the dismissal of the
original application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all these individuals
were abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities
without issuance of any show-cause notice.
6. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and subsequent termination,
the appellants approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of
2018 praying for the following reliefs:
“a) Setting aside and quashing the impugned order
dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
in O.A. No. 2211/2015 titled as Smt. Anita & Ors.
Versus Union of India & Ors., and
b) Directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners
to their posts held by them prior to their illegal
termination on 27.04.2018 and further to regularize
the services of all the petitioners in their respective
posts, from the date of their initial appointments with
all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.
c) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction, or order, as this Hon›ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, in favor of the petitioners and against
the respondents.”
7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous
service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor
or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without
any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees,
and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep,
cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent’s offices. The
High Court, after examining the Tribunal’s decision and the
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1241

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before
it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against
sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of
full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied
on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.
Uma Devi 3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested
right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite
conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners
did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily
required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the
employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping
and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal
basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached
this Court by way of these appeals.
8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been
advanced before us:
(i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants
emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over
a decade—and in some instances, exceeding two decades.
They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-
based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of
the respondent’s offices.
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities—such as cleaning,
dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks—were not
casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring
a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively
aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.
(iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the
appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks.
They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory,
and there was no indication from the respondents that their
performance was not satisfactory or required improvement.

3 [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1
1242 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iv). Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines: The appellants
assert that their appointments were not “illegal” but at most
“irregular.” Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi,4 they submit that long-
serving employees in irregular appointments—who fulfil
essential, sanctioned functions—are entitled to consideration
for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that
individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements
have been regularized. They contend that denying them the
same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role,
constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants
reject the respondents’ reliance on formal educational
requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced
earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently
demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively
imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven
capability over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the
High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms
of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their
long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and
established judicial principles call for their regularization rather
than abrupt termination
9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been
advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:
(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the
appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual
basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was
never intended to be permanent or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants
were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to

4 [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1243

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be
no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent
workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Criteria: Relying heavily
on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the
respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions
necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving
a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create
a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that
even if the appellants were to be considered for regular
appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational
qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their
view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into
regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The
respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the
relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private
agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy
decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered
with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the
respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of
long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a
vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants’
claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High
Court was correct in dismissing their petition.
10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced
and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and
uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years,
cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments
as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must
be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral
nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their
entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
1244 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing
essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning
of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos.
1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene,
cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office
premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of
floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that
directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions
akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance
tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring
orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed
these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive
periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was
recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated
with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage
any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure,
underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts
lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants
was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as
regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were
labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these
same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with
another, further underscores that the work in question was neither
temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants’ services, following dismissal
of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and
devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without
prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of
natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual
employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1245

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

is taken against them, particularly when their service records are
unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity
to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal,
which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for
outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial
proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing
maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such
actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored
the respondents’ unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants’ rightful
claims to regularization.
16. The appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures
further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during
their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding
their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services
were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration,
though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit
acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents’
belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an
afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we
find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties
the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and
gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational
prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria
that were never central to their engagement or the performance
of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves
have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly
enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-
standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability
to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal
educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.
18. The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser
tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The
counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees
working as the Multi-Tasking Staff published by the Respondent
1246 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were
a part of the staff without the required educational qualification:

S. Name Educational Date of Temporary Category
No. Qualification Continuous or
CWC Permanent
Service posts

1. Krishna s/o Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC
Lt. Khajan
Singh

2. Naresh Devi Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen
w/o Ld.
Surendra
Kumar

3. Shiv Kumar Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC
s/o Lt.
Pratap Singh

4. Radhe Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC
Shyam s/o
Lt. Sadhu
Ram Maurya

5. Raju s/o Shri Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC
Banshi Lal

6. Shahjad Ali Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen
s/o Naushad
Ali

7. Punam Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC
w/o Lt. Raj
Kumar

8. Nirmala w/o Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC
Lt. Raju

A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential
treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter
service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies
discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1247

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

department’s approach. Such disparity violates the principles of
equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and cannot be sustained in law.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants’ roles were not only
essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees.
Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with
absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and
regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by
their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must
be rectified.
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.,5
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

5 [2024] 1 SCR 1230
1248 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a 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 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1249

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a
founding member, has consistently advocated for employment
stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations concerning employment
stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly
in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino
v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from
the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying
employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-
law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular
employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits,
thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and
the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s
role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
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

6 International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy.
7 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)
1250 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1251

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.

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.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the
Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the
following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their
services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not
1252 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period
they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of
services for the said period and the same would be counted
for their post-retiral benefits.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain