Break in Service Disentitles Daily Wager to Regularization: Delhi High Court Confirms Decision - 2026-04-02

Service Continuity is Key: Delhi High Court Denies Regularization Plea for Daily Wager

The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling reiterating the strict conditions governing the regularization of daily wage employees, emphasizing that service continuity is a prerequisite for such benefits under public employment policies. A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed an appeal filed by Shri Mohkam Singh, who had sought permanent status as a Baildar with the Delhi Jal Board .

A Long Road to Legal Adjudication

The case reaches back to 1982 when the appellant first joined the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking , the predecessor to the Delhi Jal Board . His service was interrupted in 1993 following his involvement in a criminal case. Although he was eventually acquitted in 1995, his employer refused to let him resume his duties.

A 2002 Labour Court order eventually directed his reinstatement, but crucially, it set the date of reinstatement at July 17, 1996, rather than the date of his termination. This specific detail became the lynchpin of the litigation that followed: the appellant did not challenge the 2002 award, effectively accepting a "break in service."

The Pivot: Regularization Eligibility

In 2006, after being reinstated but remaining on a daily-wage basis, the appellant filed a fresh dispute seeking regularization. However, both the Industrial Tribunal in 2008 and a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in 2024 concluded that the break in service caused by the 1993 termination prevented him from meeting the criteria for regularization under the respondent's policies.

The Division Bench agreed, noting that because the appellant accepted the 2002 award—which excluded the years between 1993 and 1996 from his service record—his seniority and eligibility for regularization under the Board's specific schemes were effectively nullified.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the limits of industrial adjudication when a worker's service record is legally settled:

• On the Effect of Service Breaks: "The appellant/petitioner did not challenge the award dated 03.01.2002 whereby he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 17.07.1996 and not w.e.f. 09.01.1993, which resulted in break in service as daily wager/muster roll employee and accordingly, under the policy of regularisation he could not be regularised."
• On Judicial Limitations: "The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service."
• On Finality of Awards: "The date of reinstatement as stipulated in the award dated 03.01.2002 was never challenged by the appellant/petitioner and therefore, in the facts of the instant case, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Labour Court ."

Legal Precedent and Conclusion

The appellant attempted to rely on precedents such as ONGC v. Krishan Gopal and Sanat Kumar Dwivedi v. Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank , arguing that he was a victim of hostile discrimination. However, the High Court distinguished these cases, emphasizing that the appellant's specific factual history—namely, an unchallenged Labour Court award that codified a break in his service—made the legal principles in those cases inapplicable.

The court reiterated that while industrial adjudicators possess wide powers to resolve unfair labor practices, those powers cannot override the reality of a broken service history if the previous judicial outcome defining that period remains undisputed. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the Delhi Jal Board was under no obligation to regularize the appellant given the established gaps in his tenure.