15.7.2025

The DTF welcomes the reasoned and progressive character of the High Court order for regularization of two adhoc teachers of the Department of Germanic and Romance Studies, Delhi University. This High Court order is based on the law laid down in the recent (20 December 2024) landmark Supreme Court order known as Jaggo.

These progressive Judgements fortify the demands by unions to regularise employees and bring hope to many. In the wake of these orders, Delhi University must work towards:

• Regularization of the remaining adhoc teachers.
• ⁠Regularization of as many displaced adhoc teachers as possible against the remaining vacancies.
• ⁠The entire past service should count towards all stages of promotion and retirement benefits.
• ⁠Regularisation of non-teaching employees working for long years on contractual terms.

The High Court Judgement Namita Khare and Anr vs University of Delhi and Othr: ( click here for the copy of the Judgement)

Bringing relief to the two colleagues serving on adhoc basis, the High Court order does not deliberate on prayers regarding shortlisting criteria or opportunity to be considered by selection committee since the substantive issue of regularization based on sustained service essential to the working of the institution based on appointments that were not illegal is me.

The Jaggo Judgement: (Click here for the Supreme Court Judgement)

In the Jaggo case, the Supreme Court had noted “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 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.”

It also noted that:.

“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.”

While ordering regularization, the Supreme Court had also directed that the appellants would be entitled to “continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits”.

Rajib Ray, President
Abha Dev Habib, Secretary