State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Posts Through Due Process; Legitimate Expectation Applies: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, on Friday, January 30, directed the Government of Jharkhand to forthwith regularize long-serving contractual junior engineers appointed against sanctioned posts through a selection process, and granted consequential service benefits from the date of the judgment. The dispute arose after the State continued renewing their one-year contracts for years and then sought to end further extensions while declining to consider regularization. The Court held that the State, as a model employer, cannot refuse regularization solely because the engagement is described as contractual, and that repeated extensions over time can give such workers a basis to seek regularization under the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The appeals arose from the engagement of several employees by the respondent State against sanctioned posts of Junior Engineers (Agriculture) in the Soil Conservation Directorate. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in September 2012 for 22 sanctioned posts, the appellants were selected through a recruitment process and appointed on contractual terms for one year, with provision for extension based on performance.
The appellants continued in service through successive yearly extensions for over a decade. During this period, recommendations were forwarded by departmental authorities seeking formulation of rules for their regularization. Despite continued extensions, the State issued orders in early 2023 indicating that no further renewal would be granted.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court seeking regularization and assailing the discontinuance of their engagement. The writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Division Bench in intra-court appeals. The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgments.
On the role of the State as an employer, the Court observed that “the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions,” and that it “cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.”
The Court added: “Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement.”
Addressing contractual stipulations, the Court stated that “fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of waiver,” and therefore “the mere fact that the appellants’ engagement was governed by contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights.”
Relying on precedent State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1,the Court recorded that “only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is made after following a due and lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation.”
On long continuance, the Court observed that “…we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court directed that “the respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization.”
“In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.”
“The judgments dated 17th September, 2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd December, 2024, in LPA Nos. 390 of 2024, 356 of 2024 and 368 of 2024, respectively, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi are set aside. The present appeals are disposed of and all writ petitions are allowed,” and that “pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Kumar Shivam, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Prakah Pathak, Adv. Ms. Anushka, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR.
For the Respondents: Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Karma Dorojee, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Mohtisham Ali, Adv. Mr. Dorjee Ongmu Lachunga, Adc. Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumarmangalam, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR.
Case Title: Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 99
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 30762 of 2024 etc.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
