The Madras High Court has ruled that continuous service on a contractual basis, even if exceeding ten years, does not entitle an employee to regularization where the post itself is not sanctioned and is not shown to be integral to the employer’s core operations. The judgment faithfully applies and upholds the Supreme Court’s ratio in Umadevi, and narrows the applicability of Jaggo v. Union of India to cases involving sanctioned posts and core functions only. This decision is a binding precedent for service matters concerning public employment and contract workers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(MD)/20589/2022 of Jeyakumar.K Vs The Govt of Tamil Nadu |
| CNR | HCMD010844992022 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2022 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Madras High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Umadevi (2006) and distinguishes Jaggo (2024) |
| Type of Law | Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether long-term contractual engagement without sanctioned post or core function entitles regularization. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that mere long-term contractual engagement does not entitle an employee to regularization if the post is not a sanctioned one and the petitioner has not established that the role is core to the employer’s operations. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Umadevi applies squarely to such situations, and exceptions carved out in Jaggo v. Union of India are limited to sanctioned posts forming part of the employer’s core functions. Contract employment on a consolidated pay, periodically renewed, does not confer any regularization right. The impugned order of rejection was therefore upheld. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Application of Umadevi on the limits of regularization for contract workers; distinction from Jaggo as to sanctioned posts and core functions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was appointed as a Contract Instructor on consolidated pay in 2012; the contract was for eleven months and periodically renewed; service regularization was sought after over ten years of continuous service; his request was denied as the post was not sanctioned and not shown to be core to employer’s operations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Madras High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; clarifies scope for Supreme Court consideration |
| Follows | State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) |
| Distinguishes | Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that regularization is not available to contract workers in non-sanctioned posts with merely long-term service.
- Clearly limits the exception established in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) to cases involving sanctioned posts and roles integral to core functions.
- No regularization right arises merely from continuous service if the employment arrangement is contractual, on consolidated pay, and the post itself is unsanctioned.
- The Umadevi ratio is strongly reaffirmed; attempts to bypass it using subsequent Supreme Court decisions will be strictly scrutinized.
- Lawyers should ensure to plead and establish, with evidence, the “sanctioned” nature and the “core function” status of posts when seeking regularization.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), where regularization was permitted for employees working for over ten years in sanctioned posts, and who discharged core functions integral to the employer.
- The Court scrutinized whether the petitioner’s situation was analogous, finding that his position as Contract Instructor was not a sanctioned post, was purely contractual and on consolidated pay, and that there was no demonstration by the petitioner that the function was core to the department’s operations.
- The Court thus distinguished Jaggo, holding that its benefit cannot be extended to contract workers in unsanctioned posts.
- Instead, the Court reaffirmed the binding precedent of Umadevi, which withholds the right to regularization for contract employees not occupying sanctioned posts or core functions, to avoid undermining public employment and equal opportunity norms.
- The impugned administrative rejection was therefore found valid; the writ was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Has worked as a Contract Instructor for more than ten years continuously.
- Relies on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) to argue entitlement to regularization for employees with over ten years of continuous service, regardless of break.
- Asserts that Umadevi does not apply given the continuous long-term service.
Respondents (State):
- The petitioner’s post is a contract position, not a sanctioned one.
- The petitioner’s employment is on consolidated pay, with contracts periodically renewed.
- Petitioner is not entitled to regularization under settled service jurisprudence.
Factual Background
The petitioner was engaged as a Contract Instructor in 2012 on a consolidated pay basis for an eleven-month period, with the contract being periodically renewed for over ten years. There was no apparent break in service. The petitioner sought regularization of service, including posting as a Junior Training Officer, citing long-term engagement. The administration rejected this request, prompting the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Jurisdiction invoked for certiorarified mandamus.
- The Court discussed the jurisprudence from Umadevi (interpreting regularization rights) and compared with the precedent in Jaggo, focusing particularly on the nature of sanctioned versus unsanctioned posts and what constitutes “core functions.”
- No other statutory sections or constitutional provisions were substantively analyzed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms and strictly applies existing Supreme Court precedent in Umadevi (2006).