AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioners have preferred this petition for direction upon the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner No.1 on the posts of Assistant librarian or equivalent post and the Petitioner No. 2 on the post of Computer Operator and directing the respondent University to release funds and ensure payment of salary to the Petitioner No.1 for the period from July, 2015 to April, 2018.
The brief facts of the case are that petitioners are contractual employees working in Doranda College (constituent college of Ranchi University) for more than a decade and the college presently has more than fifteen thousand students enrolled in one or another course.
The petitioner No. 1 possesses Degree in B.A. (History) Honors, from Ranchi University, Ranchi. She also possesses the qualification of Advance Diploma in Computer Application and Computer Hardware and Networking course and is Ph.D. in Library and Information Science acquired after due permission from the competent authority and the Respondents are continuing the Petitioner No.1 on contract basis with a lump-sum remuneration which is much lower than that of a regularly appointed incumbent on the said post- Assistant Librarian.
As per the Petitioners, Respondent No.4 vide memo no.9080/A dated 2.7.2015 appointed the Petitioner No.1 on Grade-III post in Doranda College under Ranchi University on contractual basis pursuant to which she joined on 8.7.2015.
Similarly, vide memo no.8557 dated 26.3.2013, the Petitioner No.2 was issued letter of appointment to which she joined on 2.4.2013. Petitioner No.2 is possessing Degree of B.A. (Economics) Honours, from Ranchi University.
Subsequently, vide Memo no.9728A/18 dated 25.1.2018, the Petitioner No.1 while in service, was directed to render service as Assistant Librarian (Gr.III) in Doranda College by the Respondent No.4. She accordingly submitted her joining on the said post on 2.2.2018.
Similarly, the Petitioner No.2 was also directed to join at the post of Computer Operator vide Memo no. 8611 dated 27.6.2015 pursuant to which she gave her joining on 01.07.2015.
It has been averred that remuneration of the petitioners got enhanced by Rs.1,100/- by order of the Registrar, Ranchi University contained in memo No. C/759/22 dated 25.1.2022. By another order contained in Memo no. C/170/2023 dated 29.8.2023 the remuneration of Grade-III employees was enhanced by Rs.4,000/- by order of the Registrar, Ranchi University, and arrears thereto were released by Ranchi University and the same was paid to the Petitioners.
It has been submitted that with regard to the regularization of the services of the employees working under Ranchi university Ranchi, a Committee was constituted and list of employees for regularization/absorption was sought for from all the colleges under Ranchi University, Ranchi vide letter contained in memo no.363/2020 dated 18.11.2020 issued under the signature of the Dean Students’ Welfare-cum-Coordinator of the Committee, Ranchi University, Ranchi, to which the Principal of the Doranda College, sent a list of the employees for regularization to the Deputy Registrar-II, Ranchi University, Ranchi vide reference no.10341/2020 dated 26.11.2020 wherein the name of the Petitioner No.1 was at Serial No.34 and name of the Petitioner No.2 was at Serial No.6.
By another Memo no.RU/DSW/400/2021 dated 18.1.2021 again a list was sought from Doranda College, Ranchi with regard to the list of the contractual employees working under it for regularization purpose and the same was responded by the Respondent No.4 by letter no.10398/A dated 21.1.2021 sent to the Deputy Registrar–II, Ranchi University with details of the contractual workers working under it, re-iterating that the list was already sent by the college vide letter no.10341/2020 dated 26.11.2020. The name of the Petitioner No.1 finds place at Serial No.19 and Petitioner No.2 at Serial No. 17 in the said list.
It is an admitted position that petitioners have been continuously working against the sanctioned post of non-teaching Grade-III and fulfill all qualification and eligibility and almost 90% of the sanctioned post of Grade-III & IV employees are lying vacant since decades. However, duties thereto being discharged by the contractual employees like the petitioners.
It is next submitted that acknowledging the aforesaid circumstances, the College sent letters dated 26.11.2020 and 21.01.2021 to Ranchi University communicating about the position of contractual employees on sanctioned posts for the purpose of regularization/absorption.
In the meantime, Ranchi University has regularized the services of Grade IV employees vide notification contained in Memo no. Esstt/C/588/21 dated 21.9.2021 and services of Grade III employees has been regularized by Memo no. Esstt/C/587/21 dated 21.9.2021. This fact has not been denied or disputed by the Respondents.
The petitioners have been making continuous representations to Ranchi University and the College but no positive action has been taken till date. As a matter of fact, it is reflected from the representation of Petitioner No.1 enclosed to the writ petition that the remuneration for July 2015 to April 2018 has been deferred due to want of funds, which can be inferred from the endorsement made thereon by the Respondent No.4.
It is evident from the annexure to the writ petition that the long, uninterrupted service of the Petitioners over more than a decade has been verified by the Respondent University through one or other committee constituted for the purpose and their credentials were also verified by the University in view of the Notification dated 06.09.2021.
Drawing attention of the Court to Annexure 8 which is a letter dated 21.01.2021, it has been contended that the Petitioner No.1 is serving as Gr.III in Library of Respondent No.4. Annexure 16 which is part of Rejoinder, is a letter dated 02.07.2026 by Respondent No. 4 indicating the Petitioner No.1 working as In-charge Library.
So far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she has been shown as working in Examination Department as Computer Operator as per Annexure 8 dated 21.01.2021.
Respondents 1 to 3 filed their counter affidavit and Respondent No.4 filed its counter affidavit separately, contesting the writ petition. The Respondent No. 4 disputed the initial letter of appointment of Petitioner No.1 dated 02.07.2015 as forged on the premise that no such record exists in the college.
Surprisingly, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have enclosed Letter No.10398/ A dated 21.01.2021 duly endorsed by the present incumbent on the post of Principal of Doranda College, wherein the name of the Petitioner is reflected at serial no. 19 and her initial date of joining is indicated as 02.07.2015. The same document also bears the name of Petitioner No. 2 at serial no. 17 indicating date of joining as 02.04.2013.
In view of such conduct of the Respondent No. 4, this court had directed the Respondent No. 4 to appear in person to explain the statements made in the counter affidavit. The Respondent No.4 appeared and submitted that the statement made in para 10 of his counter affidavit is because such letter could not be traced by his in the office.
It is also to be noted that the Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have admitted the documents dated 26.11.2020 and 21.01.2021 in para 10 as internal communication between the concerned respondents. Thus, the Respondents appear to be acting mala fide in their counter affidavits in order to mislead and in their zeal to contest the prayer of the petitioners.
It is also to be noted that the Respondents have not made any specific denial as against Petitioner No.2 when names of both the Petitioners are reflected in common documents issued by Respondent No.4 to University.
It has been indicated by the Petitioners that the contention of Respondent No. 4 regarding the Appointment of the Petitioner No.1 in 2015 as forged is based on the knowledge of the concerned Respondent as per Para 37 of counter affidavit which claims the statement made in Para 10 to be based on knowledge.
This Court strongly deprecates such casual approach by the Respondent No.4 in asserting important facts without verifying the records and solely on knowledge; more so when the documents relied by the petitioner has been endorsed by Respondent No.4 to the University, and hopes that Respondent No. 4 shall be careful in future.
This Court finds that the duties of Librarian and Computer Operator are permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the Respondent college. Petitioners’ services have been unblemished, have never been issued with any warning or adverse remarks. The services rendered by the petitioners are not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees.
The Statutes of the Respondent University as also the UGC regulations dated 18.07.2018 including the previous Regulations indicate to the fact that the post of Librarian is a sanctioned post in a college. A copy of Letter No. 719 dated 25.06.2021 issued by the State and not disputed by the Respondents, also indicates sanctioned post of Librarian and Asst. Librarian in the college.
The respondents while contesting the case of Petitioner No.1 have also not denied or disputed the eligibility of the Petitioner No.1 for the post of Assistant Librarian.
So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, no much contest or opposition has been made by the Respondents in their Counter Affidavits. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that factual matrix of Petitioner No. 2 is not in contest.
The best case of the Respondents as per the submissions advanced is that the Petitioners are not working against Sanctioned Post, not appointed by competent authority and thus not entitled for regularization.
However, when faced with Letter No.719 dated 25.06.2021, the Respondents are not able to deny or dispute the same.
It is regrettable that the Petitioners are in continuous employment for more than 10 years in Respondent College and the argument is raised that there is no sanctioned post.
Sanctioned posts are to be created by a conscious executive decision, depending on the requirement, necessity and utility of the work. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven; if the Petitioners are in continuous employment for more than a decade, this itself implies that the nature of duty is perennial, continuous and indispensable for the functioning of the institution.
It is beyond logic that a college having more than 15,000 students enrolled in various courses is not having any library. And if the College is having a library, it cannot function without a librarian. Similarly, in the present-day scenario, all records and office works are maintained and done by computer. If the same is an indispensable part of college, it cannot be permitted to contend that there is no post of Computer operator.
The Respondents’ submissions and contentions are reflection of exploitative conduct by a State University, which cannot be accepted by the Court.
Nonetheless, Letter No. 719 dated 25.06.2021 clearly indicates existence of the post of Assistant Librarian and Librarian. Hence, it is safe to presume that the contest by the Respondents is infused with mala fide intent.
The plight of the Petitioners and the contractual employees, in government institutions have been perilous, often faced multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts is to address short-term needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo V.s Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 vide Para 25 has held that these practices manifest in several ways. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: ……….
(i)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.
(ii)Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the case of the petitioner. 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.
(iii)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.
(iv)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.
(v)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.
It is imperative for the respondent/Government Departments to provide fair and stable employment. 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 in turn would also lead to better devotion and diligence by the employees which cannot be expected from temporary or contractual or daily rated workers.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors (Civil Appeal Nos. 4145/2025) reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 909 vide Para 74 dealing with core question whether the appellants can be denied the benefit of regularization solely on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that the decision in Umadevi (supra) prohibits such regularization, vide Para 74 has held as under:
“74.This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the tendency of the State to take mechanical shelter under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to employees who had been performing work of a permanent and essential nature for long years. This Court observed as follows:—
“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.
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 judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, 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.
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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Para 75 to 78 in Sukhendu Bhattarjee (Supra) has held as under:
“75.Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra) while relying on the judgment of Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh (supra) observed as follows:—
“13.6.This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9.The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.” (Emphasis supplied)
76.What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served it for long years. The consistent thread running through these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.
77.Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that engaging workers on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State which continued for prolonged period of time. The appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for decades in departments performing regular governmental functions. The State itself acknowledged the magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet policy to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such circumstances, to deny consideration to the fraction of remaining eligible workers including the appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness that this Court has consistently upheld.
78.In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to accept the contention of the State that the appellants cannot be granted regularization on the ground that they were not initially appointed against duly sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the appellants prior to 1 April, 1993, utilised their services continuously for decades, and having itself framed and implemented a Cabinet policy regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by taking shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of Umadevi (supra). In absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestly arbitrary. It is inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer and does not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to orders passed by this Court in similar matters – WPS 4909/2022 [Sonu Prasad V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS 543/2020 [Sangeeta Toppo V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS 722/2026 [Gulam Khan V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS 315/2025 [Dharo Oraon V. State of Jharkhand] and WPS 2825/2021 [Sunil kumar V. State of Jharkhand] , wherein this Court relying upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders for regularization in favour of the Petitioners who have been working for long on contract basis.
The Petitioners have further relied on the judgment of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6125/2015 in Mahdwi Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (para 20 to 28) and contended that under similar circumstances, the Patna High Court has issued direction for regularization with all consequential monetary and other benefits to the Petitioners therein in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to herein above.
Relying on the judgment by Orissa High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Patra V. State of Orissa & Ors. [WPC 22932/2019], it was contended by the respondent therein that the employees were engaged under self-financing courses, the principal of the concerned college had appointed the petitioners and claim for regularization was rejected by the respondents was quashed by the Orissa High Court, relying on the order/judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, orders of this Court and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are being exploited by continuing on contract basis when the duties discharged by them are indispensable and perennial in nature.
The action of the Respondent university in regularizing Class IV and Class III employees vide notification contained in Memo no. Esstt/C/588/21 dated 21.9.2021 and Memo no. Esstt/C/587/21 dated 21.9.2021, who are similarly placed as the Petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination.
It is therefore in the interest of justice that the Petitioners be meted out equal treatment and hence the Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to regularize the Petitioner no. 1 on the post of Assistant Librarian and the Petitioner No. 2 on the post of Computer Operator in Doranda College, Ranchi (Respondent No.4) within a period of 6 weeks from today with all consequential benefits.
The Respondents 1 to 4 are also directed to release the remuneration of the Petitioner No. 1 for the period July 2015 to April 2018 after adjusting the payment if any made, within the same time frame i.e., four weeks from today.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.