JAGGO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1235 : 2024 INSC 1034
Jaggo
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term 
serving employees performing essential function in government 
establishment.
Headnotes†
Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally 
engaged by the Central Water Commission-CWC on part-
time, ad-hoc terms for essential housekeeping and support 
functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments  – 
Appellants sought regularization of their services on the 
ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged 
against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the 
application holding that the appellants not engaged on "regular 
vacancies” and their case did not attract the principles enabling 
regularization – Thereafter, the services of appellants abruptly 
terminated without issuance of any notice – Appellants filed 
writ petition – High Court dismissed the same – Correctness:
Held: Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods 
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely 
by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual – 
Essence of their employment must be considered in the light 
of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, 
and no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or 
surreptitious route –
Engagement was not sporadic or temporary 
in nature; it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities 
typically associated with sanctioned posts – Nature of the work 
performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning 
of the offices – Termination letters issued without prior notice 
violated fundamental principles of natural justice – Issuing tenders 
* Author
1236
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial 
proceedings, despite stay order from the tribunal, revealed lack 
of bona fide intentions – Appellants’ consistent performance over 
their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization – 
Also, the nature of duties the appellants performed does not 
inherently mandate formal educational prerequisite – Appellants' 
roles were essential and indistinguishable from those of regular 
employees – Where appointments not illegal but possibly “irregular,” 
and employees had served continuously against the backdrop 
of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, 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 ad-hoc 
or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization – 
Pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, reflects a 
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and 
job security – Government institutions, entrusted with upholding 
the principles of fairness and justice, bear greater responsibility to 
avoid the exploitative employment practices – Engaging workers 
on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when the 
roles are integral to the organization's functioning, contravenes 
international labour standards, 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 – 
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the 
tribunal set aside and termination orders quashed – Constitution 
of India – Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 10-28]
Service law – Regularization of services – Judgment in 
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi’s case – Clarification:
Held: Decision in Uma Devi’s case does not intend to penalize 
employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing 
and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities – While 
the judgment in Uma Devi’s case sought to curtail the practice of 
backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional 
principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted 
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees – 
This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1237
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
appointments – It categorically held that employees in irregular 
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had 
served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered 
for regularization as a one-time measure – However, the laudable 
intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on 
its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even 
in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack 
adherence to procedural formalities – Government departments 
often cite the judgment in Uma Devi’s case to argue that no 
vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, 
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases 
where regularization is appropriate – This selective application 
distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing 
it against employees who have rendered indispensable services 
over decades. [Paras 20, 26]
Case Law Cited
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [2006] 3 SCR 953 : 
(2006) 4 SCC 1; Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & 
Ors. [2024] 1 SCR 1230 – relied on.
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) – 
referred to.
List of Keywords
Service law; Regularization of services; Contractual employees; 
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi’s case; Misinterpretation 
or misapplication of Uma Devi’s case; Regularization of services 
of long term serving
employees; Employees performing essential 
function in government establishment; Central Water Commission-
CWC; Essential housekeeping and support functions; Long-
serving employees; Work of perennial nature; Regular vacancies; 
Principles enabling regularization; Issuance of notice; Long and 
uninterrupted service; Labelling initial appointments as part-
time or contractual; Engagement not sporadic or temporary in 
nature; Outsourcing; Long tenures; Appointments not illegal but 
irregular; Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service; Misuse 
of temporary employment contracts; Government institutions; 
Principles of fairness and justice; Exploitative employment 
practices; Engaging workers on temporary basis; International 
labour standards; Promote job security; Principles of justice and
1238
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
fairness; Denial of legitimate claims of long-serving employees; 
Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments; Continuous 
and Substantive engagement; Abrupt termination from services; 
Termination without show-cause notice; Absence of performance 
issues; Discrimination in regularization; Violation of fundamental 
principles of contractual employees; Violation of principles 
of equality; Gig economy; Detrimental trend of gig economy; 
International Labour Organization; ILO’s Multinational Enterprises 
Declaration; Exploitation of contractual workers; Betterment of 
labour practices.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.6822 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No. 14832 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Udian Sharma, Jaitegan Singh Khurana, 
Ms. Akshaya Jebakumar, Manav Mitra, Ms. Anshul Rajora, Kshitij 
Mudgal, Mohd. Anas, Akshay Bedi, Ram Lal Roy, Bhuvan Kapoor, 
Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Vinayak Sharma, Subham Saxena, 
Shubham Saxena, Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Prasenjeet Mahapatra, 
Shashank Bajpai, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for the appearing 
parties.
Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 08.08.2023 passed 
by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 
2018, whereby
the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by 
the appellants and confirmed the order of the Central Administrative
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1239
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi1 dated 17.04.2018 whereby it dismissed 
the original application of the appellants seeking regularization of 
their services. 
3.	
The appellants before this Court, who were applicants before the 
Tribunal originally numbered five. However, the fourth applicant 
before the Tribunal has not approached this Court. Therefore, these 
appeals are instituted by Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 only. The 
sole Appellant in SLP(C) No. 5580/2024 was applicant no. 2 before 
the Tribunal whereas the Appellant no. 1, 2 and 3 in SLP(C) No. 
11086/ 2024 were Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 respectively before the 
Tribunal. For ease of reference and to maintain consistency, they 
shall continue to be referred to by their original applicant numbers 
as before the Tribunal.
4.	
The appellants before this Court, being Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, 
and 5 before the Tribunal, were originally engaged by the Central 
Water Commission2 on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 
was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a 
Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All 
three were primarily responsible for cleaning and maintaining the 
office premises under the CWC. Applicant No.5, appointed in 2004 
as a Khallasi (also discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi), 
was entrusted with tasks such as gardening, dusting, and other 
ancillary maintenance work. Throughout their engagement, these
individuals performed essential housekeeping and support functions 
at CWC establishments, including its offices at Faridabad, ensuring 
daily upkeep and contributing to the smooth functioning of the 
Commission’s administrative operations.
5.	
Initially, the appellants sought regularization of their services by 
filing Original Application No.2211/2015 before the Tribunal. They 
contended that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had 
evolved beyond the nominal labels of “part-time” or “contractual” and 
that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the 
CWC’s operations. They relied on applicable government instructions 
and the principle that long-serving employees, engaged against work 
of a perennial nature, deserve fair consideration for regularization, 
1	
Hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”
2	
In short, “CWC”
1240
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
provided their appointments were not illegal or clandestine. The 
Tribunal, by its order dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants’ 
plea. It concluded that the appellants were not engaged on what it 
considered “regular vacancies,” that they had not completed what it 
termed as sufficient “full-time” service (such as meeting a 240-days 
per year criterion), and that their case did not attract the principles 
enabling regularization. Within ten days after the dismissal of the 
original application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all these individuals 
were abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities 
without issuance of any show-cause notice.
6.	
Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and subsequent termination, 
the appellants approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 
2018 praying for the following reliefs: 
“a)	 Setting aside and quashing the impugned order 
dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi 
in O.A. No. 2211/2015 titled as Smt. Anita & Ors. 
Versus Union of India & Ors., and
b)	
Directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners 
to their posts held by them prior to their illegal 
termination on 27.04.2018 and further to regularize 
the services of all the petitioners in their respective 
posts, from the date of their initial appointments with 
all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.
c)	
Issue the writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate 
writ, direction, or order, as this Hon›ble Court may 
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances 
of the case, in favor of the petitioners and against 
the respondents.”
7.	
They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous 
service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor 
or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without 
any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, 
and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, 
cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent’s offices. The 
High Court, after examining the Tribunal’s decision and the
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1241
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before 
it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against 
sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of 
full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied 
on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. 
Uma Devi 3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested 
right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite 
conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners 
did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily 
required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the 
employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping 
and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal 
basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached 
this Court by way of these appeals. 
8.	
On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been 
advanced before us:
(i).	
Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants 
emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over 
a decade—and in some instances, exceeding two decades. 
They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-
based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of 
the respondent’s offices.
(ii).	 Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities—such
as cleaning, 
dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks—were not 
casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring 
a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively 
aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.
(iii).	 Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the 
appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. 
They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, 
and there was no indication from the respondents that their 
performance was not satisfactory or required improvement.
3	
[2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1
1242
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iv).	 Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines: The appellants 
assert that their appointments were not “illegal” but at most 
“irregular.” Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, 
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi,4 they submit that long-
serving employees in irregular appointments—who fulfil 
essential, sanctioned functions—are entitled to consideration 
for regularization.
(v).	 Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that 
individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements 
have been regularized. They contend that denying them the 
same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, 
constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
(vi).	 Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants 
reject the respondents’ reliance on formal educational 
requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced 
earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently 
demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively 
imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven 
capability over many years.
(vii).	Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the 
High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms 
of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their 
long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and 
established judicial principles call for their regularization rather 
than abrupt termination
9.	
On
the other hand, the following primary arguments have been 
advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents: 
(i).	
Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the 
appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual 
basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was 
never intended to be permanent or full-time.
(ii).	 Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants 
were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to 
4	
[2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1243
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be 
no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent 
workforce.
(iii).	 Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Criteria: Relying heavily 
on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the 
respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions 
necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving 
a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create 
a right to be regularized.
(iv).	 Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that 
even if the appellants were to be considered for regular 
appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational 
qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their 
view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into 
regular service.
(v).	 Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The 
respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the 
relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private 
agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy 
decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered 
with by the courts.
(vi).	 No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the 
respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of 
long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a 
vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants’ 
claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High
Court was correct in dismissing their petition.
10.	 Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced 
and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and 
uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, 
cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments 
as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must 
be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral 
nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their 
entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
1244
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11.	 The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing 
essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning 
of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, 
cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office 
premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of 
floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that 
directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. 
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions 
akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance 
tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring 
orderly surroundings.
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.
14.	 The abrupt termination of the appellants’ services, following dismissal 
of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and 
devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without 
prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of 
natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual 
employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1245
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
is taken against them, particularly when their service records are 
unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity 
to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, 
which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15.	 Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for 
outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial 
proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing 
maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such 
actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored 
the respondents’ unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants’ rightful 
claims to regularization.
16.	 The appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures 
further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during 
their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding 
their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services 
were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, 
though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit 
acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents’ 
belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an 
afterthought and lacks credibility.
17.	 As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we 
find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties 
the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping,
dusting, and 
gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational 
prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria 
that were never central to their engagement or the performance 
of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves 
have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly 
enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-
standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability 
to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal 
educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.
18.	 The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser 
tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The 
counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees 
working as the Multi-Tasking Staff published by the Respondent
1246
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were 
a part of the staff without the required educational qualification:
S. 
No.
Name
Educational 
Qualification
Date of 
Continuous 
CWC 
Service
Temporary 
or 
Permanent 
posts
Category
1.
Krishna s/o 
Lt. Khajan 
Singh
Illiterate
26.07.1988
Permanent
SC
2.
Naresh Devi 
w/o Ld. 
Surendra 
Kumar
Illiterate
29.10.1991
Permanent
Gen
3.
Shiv Kumar 
s/o Lt. 
Pratap Singh
Illiterate
08.09.1994
Permanent
SC
4.
Radhe 
Shyam s/o 
Lt. Sadhu 
Ram Maurya
Illiterate
30.05.2012
Permanent
OBC
5.
Raju s/o Shri 
Banshi Lal
Illiterate
12.07.1994
Permanent
SC
6.
Shahjad Ali 
s/o Naushad 
Ali
Illiterate
01.07.2010
Permanent
Gen
7.
Punam 
w/o Lt. Raj 
Kumar
Illiterate
21.09.2015
Permanent
SC
8.
Nirmala w/o 
Lt. Raju
Illiterate
02.02.2022
Temporary
SC
A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential 
treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter 
service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies 
discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1247
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
department’s approach. Such disparity violates the principles of 
equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India 
and cannot be sustained in law.
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
judgement of this 
Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,5 
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. The relevant paras of this 
judgement 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 
5	
[2024] 1 SCR 1230
1248
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1249
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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 Declaration6 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. 
24.	 The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino 
v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from 
the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying 
employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft 
classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby 
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-
law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular 
employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly 
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent 
contractors as
a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, 
thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the 
principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label 
assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and 
the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s 
role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers 
receive fair treatment.
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 
6	
International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational 
Enterprises and Social Policy. 
7	
97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)
1250
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
26.	 While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the 
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered 
to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1251
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.
are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims 
of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish 
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held 
that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in 
duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than 
ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time 
measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being 
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject 
the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments 
are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. 
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi 
(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists 
for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit 
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This 
selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, 
effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered 
indispensable services over decades.
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.
28.	 In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are 
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the 
Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the 
following extent:
i.	
The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii.	
The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their 
services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not

1252
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period 
they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of 
services for the said period and the same would be counted 
for their post-retiral benefits.
29.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain