Gauhati High Court rejects Centre's challenge to CIH employee's regularisation after 17 years of service at its Nagaland institute
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has dismissed the Centre's challenge to the regularisation of a female employee of the Central Institute of Horticulture (CIH), Medziphema, holding that an institution cannot keep using an employee's services for years while leaving her on contractual engagement indefinitely.
In a judgement delivered on November 6, a division bench of Justices Yarenjungla Longkumer and Helen Dawngliani ruled that the Centre could not rely on the 10-year service requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in the Uma Devi case as an automatic ground to deny her regularisation.
The court pointed out that the institute had used the employee's services for 17 years, although she had worked in different capacities and under casual and contractual arrangements during that period.
“An employee cannot be kept in a precarious state of engagement for an indefinite period, particularly when the Institute continue to require and utilise the service,” the bench observed.
Also read: High Court reserves judgment on former Nagaland University professor’s compulsory retirement plea
The case arose from a 2026 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, which had directed the Centre to regularise four contractual employees of the institute against sanctioned posts. The Union government and other authorities challenged the order before the High Court, but their petition concerned only one of the four employees—a woman appointed as a stenographer in November 2019.
The Centre argued that she had not completed 10 years of service against a sanctioned post and, therefore, did not qualify for regularisation under the exception recognised in the Supreme Court's 2006 judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi. According to the Centre, her service against the sanctioned stenographer's post could be counted only from November 1, 2019.
Her counsel, however, argued that she had been associated with the institute since 2009, initially working in different capacities before being selected and appointed as a stenographer in 2019. The institute had continued to use her services throughout this period, even though her employment status remained contractual.
The High Court noted that the CIH was established at Medziphema in 2006 with the approval of the Union Cabinet and had 17 sanctioned posts, including those of field assistant and stenographer. After attempts to fill the vacancies through deputation largely failed, the institute resorted to contractual appointments.
The bench ruled that the 10-year requirement under the Uma Devi judgement had to be considered in the context of the ruling rather than applied mechanically. It pointed out that the Supreme Court's judgement was intended to prevent government institutions from keeping people in casual or temporary employment for years and then using the absence of regular recruitment as a reason to deny them relief.
The court also clarified that completing 10 years of service at a later stage does not automatically entitle an employee to regularisation.
In this case, however, it stated that the woman's association with the institute since 2009, followed by her contractual appointment against a sanctioned post in 2019, had to be considered as a whole. The institute had continued to rely on her services over a considerable period, giving rise to a legitimate expectation, the bench observed.
Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution, the court said denying her relief through a mechanical application of the 10-year requirement would fall short of the fairness expected from a model employer.
The bench clarified that her seniority as a stenographer would be counted only from November 1, 2019, as she had not worked in that capacity before then.
Finding no merit in the Centre's challenge, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the tribunal's decision in her case.