Patna High Court – Orders
(Dr.) Rajesh Kumar vs The Union Of India on 20 December, 2024
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13373 of 2023
======================================================
(Dr.) Rajesh Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 20-12-2024
Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anshay Bahadur
Mathur, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner seeks modification in respect of the
direction/observation contained in the judgment and order dated
02.12.2024 passed in the present writ petition to the extent that
other lecturers were appointed in view of the advertisement
called in the year 2011 and the present petitioner cannot be
compared with them. In that view, learned counsel submitted
that since the same could not be clarified at the time of hearing
of the case, and this Court had inadvertently observed in
Paragraph No.24 that “….. the petitioner also deserves to be
regularized on the post of lecturer from the date of his
eligibility or at least from the date other lecturers have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.13373 of 2023(4) dt.20-12-2024
2/6
appointed by obtaining expeditious approval, in view of the
admitted fact that the petitioner has completed more than two
decade of service …..”. Learned counsel further submitted that
the inadvertent mistake is required to be modified by
substituting the same by, “the petitioner is entitled for
regularization from the date of his initial appointment i.e.
06.11.2001 in view of substantive nature of work performed by
him over a decades”. Learned counsel further submitted that
today the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Jaggo Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024) taking note
of the judgment in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230 has made
following observations in Paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and
27, which are reproduced hereinafter:
“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.[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was held that
held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose appointment
Patna High Court CWJC No.13373 of 2023(4) dt.20-12-2024
3/6was 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 judgment 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 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 engage
Patna High Court CWJC No.13373 of 2023(4) dt.20-12-2024
4/6
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 Declaration
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.
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13373 of 2023(4) dt.20-12-2024
5/6such 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.
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.”
3. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Jaggo (supra) also the petitioner seeks modification
of the judgment and order dated 02.12.2024.
4. Be that as it may be, considering the aforesaid
submission and the law referred hereinabove on behalf of the
petitioner, the judgment dated 02.12.2024 in view of the
admitted facts and the law is modified to the extent that “other
lecturers who were appointed in the year 2011 are differently
placed while the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from
the date of his initial appointment i.e. 06.11.2001 on contract
basis which was not incidental but integral and continuous for
over more than two decades”.
5. Thus, the observation made by the Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13373 of 2023(4) dt.20-12-2024
6/6Paragraph No.24 of the judgment dated 02.12.2024 to the extent
that “the petitioner also deserves to be regularized on the post
of lecturer from the date of his eligibility or at least from the
date other lecturers have been appointed by obtaining
expeditious approval, in view of the admitted fact that the
petitioner has completed more than two decade of service”
stands deleted.
6. The order dated 02.12.2024 is modified to the
aforesaid extent. The other part of the order shall remain intact.
7. The modification as sought for by the petitioner is
allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link