Introduction
The question of regularization of contractual and ad hoc workers has remained one of the most controversial sectors of Indian service law. In a majority of governmental departments, municipalities, academies and universities, and public enterprises, a considerable percentage of workers work on temporary, daily-wages, or contractual terms. Notwithstanding such workers’ continuous and essential duties, they are still not extended the privileges of permanent employees, including job security, pay parity, and pensionary advantages.
The heavy reliance on casual labor gives rise to an important constitutional question. In one respect, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution call for transparency and equal treatment of public sector employees, and so discourages illegal or “backdoor” appointments. In the other, the ongoing casualization of workers undermines the constitutional right to labor dignity as enshrined in Article 21 and facilitates the State’s perpetuation of exploitation.
During the past two decades, the Supreme Court of India has grappled with this tension in a series of landmark judgments. Beginning with Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), in which recruitment norms were duly emphasized, the Court moved gradually to a finer position, recognizing the unfairness meted out to long-standing contractual employees. Thereafter, subsequent cases such as M.L. Kesari (2010), Daya Lal (2011), Sheo Narain Nagar (2018), Jaggo (2024), Shripal (2025), and the recent decision in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) are illustrative of the evolution.
This article reviews the judicial thinking on the regularization of contractual employees and tracks its transformation from an absolute application of constitutional values to an expansion of recognition of fairness, equity, and social justice.
The Turning Point: Uma Devi (2006)
Starting point of this jurisprudence is Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), in which Constitution Bench stressed upon the fact that public employment is bound to follow Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court disallowed strongly “backdoor appointments” and maintained that regularisation cannot be asserted as a matter of right.
Concurrently, the Court acknowledged a restricted exception: appointments that were not unlawful but rather irregular (for example, those made without adhering to each procedural requirement yet aligned with authorized positions) could be deemed eligible for regularization provided that the employees had a lengthy tenure and were involved in ongoing work. Notably, the Court permitted a singular absorption scheme for these instances.
This ruling established a framework of constitutional discipline while simultaneously recognizing that exploitative ad hoc practices could not be sustained indefinitely.
Post-Uma Devi Jurisprudence: Refining the Doctrine
As a sequel to the historic judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), the Supreme Court made a few clarifications so as not to vitiate the decision but be faithful to the constitutional directive of equality of opportunity in public employment.
- State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010)
The Court’s thinking was that the special regularisation measure contemplated in Uma Devi was not confined to a single date and time but was to be done whenever and wherever it came to its notice of eligible employees who had served for over 10 years in sanctioned posts. This ruled out the possibility of the State evading its duty on the ground that the window period for regularisation was over.
- State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011)
Here, the Court emphasised that illegal appointments—those made without sanctioned posts or contrary to rules—could not be regularised, but irregular appointments stood on a different footing. Sympathy alone could not dictate outcomes, but fairness required distinguishing between the two categories.
- State of U.P. v. Sheo Narain Nagar (2018)
Here, the Court severely condemned the long-standing practice of retaining employees on daily wages. It concluded that financial considerations stood in the way of treating the employees to regularisation, for the work was of a perennial and intrinsic nature to the running of the institution. The decision was a move in the direction of a worker-friendly interpretation.
Reaffirming Fairness:
As the jurisprudence matured, the Supreme Court began to explicitly warn against using Uma Devi as a rigid shield against fairness.
- Jaggo v. Union of India (2024)
The Court acknowledged that contractual or ad hoc nomenclature should not be employed to obscure exploitation. In cases of employees who had continuously served for decades on core duties, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to validate posts and regularize them. The Court once again held that unlimited ad hocism was a breach of Articles 14 and 16 and eroded equal treatment.
- Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025)
Thereafter, the Court’s reasoning was to be that temporary or contract appointments would not do in place of regular appointments if the character of work was permanent. It warned against such practices diluting constitutional values and denying workers dignity under Article 21
The Latest Development: Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025)
The decision in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) marks a major step forward in this branch of legal rules. The case was about Class-III and Class-IV workers who served from the early 1990s. Despite long service, the State refused regularization citing a paucity of sanctioned posts and financial constraints.
The Supreme Court quashed these refusals, holding that the State cannot indefinitely extract perennial labour under temporary designations. Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, clarified that financial limitations cannot be invoked as a talisman to avoid fairness.
Key Directions:
- The Court instructed the creation of supernumerary positions to employ the employees.
- All qualified workers should be regularised from 24 April 2002 (the date of an earlier directive from the High Court).
- There should be fixation of employees at the minimum of the pay scale with increments and payment of arrears within three months, and if not, compound interest at 6% p.a. should be levied.
- Retired employees were given a recalculation of pension and retiral benefits, while legal heirs of dead workers were awarded arrears.
- A sworn compliance affidavit was to be filed within four months.
The Court was meticulous in building an elaborate framework, recognizing that “justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions” — delayed technicalities and repeated reassessments for far too long had denied workers dignity and fairness.
Reflections
Considering this pattern, from Uma Devi to Dharam Singh, there are few principles clearly visible:
- Permanent work demands permanent recognition — Staff carrying out vital, everyday tasks can’t be retained on indefinite.
- Financial excuses are not absolute — While resource constraints exist, they cannot justify perpetual denial of fairness.
- The State as a constitutional employer — States and public authorities are bound to provide a higher standard, a balance of recruitment discipline and work dignity.
Conclusion
The law on regularisation of contractual employees has developed from the rigidity of Uma Devi (2006) to the fairness approach in Dharam Singh (2025). Whereas the Court has steadfastly declined to sanction illegal backdoor appointments, it has also made it abundantly clear that indefinite ad-hocism for permanent functions is unconstitutional.
Latest decisions such as Jaggo, Shripal, and Dharam Singh ratify the position that financial limitations or labeling of contract cannot be a reason for exploitation, and that the State of India, being a model employer, needs to preserve the dignity of work within Articles 14, 16, and 21. The course of case law reveals a definitive direction: constitutional restraint in recruitment still stands supreme, yet fairness to long-standing employees is today also an equally enforceable constitutional duty.
