Bypassing regular appointments through long-term outsourcing unfair: Allahabad HC

The HC directed the Bareilly Nagar Nigam to consider regularising service of petitioner who has been working as a computer operator on an outsourced basis for over 13 years

The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of public employers bypassing regular recruitment by continuously engaging staff through outsourcing agencies, saying that such a system provides wide “room for exploitation and unfairness”.

The Allahabad HC directed that the claim for regularisation of the petitioner be considered within four months. (For Representation)

Justice Vikram D Chauhan while allowing a petition filed by one Kafi Ahmed Khan directed the Bareilly Nagar Nigam to consider regularising service of Khan who has been working as a computer operator on an outsourced basis for over 13 years.

The court in its March 17 order observed, “Continuous long term employment by employer on outsourcing/daily wages, where duties are indispensable in nature, may indicate exploitative employment practices more particularly when the work in the department are performed by human resource supplied by outsourcing agency and thereby stopping or ignoring the regular mode of appointment on the sanctioned post.”

In 2019, his writ plea for regularisation was disposed of by the high court with a direction to the authorities to consider his claim. However, the Nagar Ayukta rejected his claim in December 2020. The authority cited a February 2016 government order, which provided that regularisation was only legally permissible for daily wage employees appointed on or before December 31, 2001.

Before the HC, his counsel primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India 2024, wherein the Apex court had criticised the practice of government institutions engaging workers on a temporary basis for a prolonged period, which results in the infringement of various labour rights.

It was also contended that the long-standing employment of the petitioner was indicative of the fact that work is of a permanent nature, and the denial of regularisation of the petitioner, despite long-standing employment of more than 13 years, was arbitrary in nature.

The bench set aside the impugned order passed by respondent no 3—Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly—and directed that the claim for regularisation of the petitioner be considered within four months in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.