Government is taking full time work from contractual employees same as regular employees: Can we claim regularisation? There is five hundred thirty-seven employees are working in the university on the post of regular strength. Only sixty-one employees are working on regular basis. When we joined the job there was clear clause in the contract that we shall not be treated as the employee of the university. Our services may be extended time to time after the gap of six months based upon our performance. We are working as a contractual employee from last seven years. Now the management team and the upper administrative team want to change the existing contractual employee with others. Can we claim regularisation?
The current established legal stance is that individuals employed on a temporary, casual, ad hoc, or contractual basis do not have the right to demand regularization or permanent employment. The case of Secretary State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 represents a significant shift in the debate regarding the regularization of ad-hoc or temporary employees.
In this case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined whether a state could implement a scheme to regularize the services of ad hoc/temporary/daily wage workers who were appointed in violation of the doctrine of equality, or who were appointed with a clear understanding that their employment would not lead to any right to seek regularization. The Supreme Court also considered whether courts could issue a mandamus order for the regularization or absorption of such appointees.
The supreme court in Umadevi case, has held that if a person is hired for a temporary, contractual, or casual position without following the proper selection process as defined by relevant rules and procedures, they are aware that their appointment is of a temporary nature. Therefore, they cannot use the theory of legitimate expectation to demand confirmation in the position. This is because permanent appointments can only be made through a proper selection process and, in certain cases, with consultation from the Public Service Commission.
In paragraph 53 of its judgment in the Umadevi case, the Apex Court allowed for the regularization of irregular appointments of duly qualified individuals in sanctioned vacant posts where employees had worked for 10 years or more, without the intervention of court orders.
However, the exception made in the Umadevi case is a one-time exception and only applicable to employees who had completed ten years of service as of 10th April 2006. You are appointed on purely contractual or temporary basis without following due selection process. You said that you are working on the sanctioned posts.
If it is a sanctioned post and you have been appointed by a selection committee after evaluation of your educational and other qualifications which are also mandatory for the appointment on the regular post, then you have a right to claim regularisation and the judgment of the Umadevi will not apply. In lack of facts, I cannot advice very precisely about your claim of regularisation.
The Apex Court held in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v. Anita, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 293, held that individuals who have accepted contractual appointments are bound by the terms of their appointments and are estopped from challenging those terms. This means that once someone accepts a contractual appointment, they cannot later argue that the terms of their appointment were unfair or unjust. They are expected to fulfill their duties as per the terms of their contractual agreement.
