Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 286

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
Lrs Of Sunny, S/o Shri Kishan Lal Ji - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Communication And It, Department Of Posts, Government Of India - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6974 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri
For the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali for Mr. B.P. Bohra, Sr. CGSC

The state as a model employer cannot deny regularization to long-term part-time workers performing perennial duties by relying on temporary labels. Such practices, when denying parity with similarly situated employees, violate the fundamental right to equality and constitute an exploitative use of superior bargaining power.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Regularization of service - Part-time employee performing perennial duties - Disparity in treatment compared to similarly situated peers - Denial of regularization based on procedural labels such as 'temporary' or 'contingency fund' - Application of 'Model Employer' doctrine - Unconscionable nature of contractual engagements involving unequal bargaining power - Legitimate expectation. (Paras 14-17, 19-21)

(B) Service Law - Continuous cause of action - Right of legal heirs to pursue proceedings - Death of an employee during litigation does not extinguish the claim for service benefits when the cause of action is continuous. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
A long-term part-time employee served for over three decades in a perennial capacity for a government entity. Despite consistent performance and attempts to formalize employment, the employer continued the engagement under casual labels. A similarly situated coworker was regularized through judicial intervention. Upon the original applicant's death, the legal representative continued the litigation against an order of the tribunal that denied regularization on grounds of delay and factual distinction.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the work performed was inherently permanent and essential. It held that procedural labels and financial constraints are insufficient to justify perpetual ad-hocism or the denial of equality. The court emphasized that the claim represented a continuous cause of action and that the state, acting as a model employer, must ensure fairness rather than exploiting the vulnerability of an employee.

Issues: Whether a long-term part-time employee is entitled to regularization, and whether the denial of parity with a similarly situated colleague, despite long service, violates constitutional mandates on equality.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional guarantee of equality prohibits the state from engaging in exploitative employment practices such as keeping personnel as temporary workers for decades. Where employment is perennial and the worker has performed duties identical to those on regular posts, the absence of initial formal recruitment procedures does not bar regularization if the appointment was irregular rather than illegal.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned tribunal order was set aside, and the authorities were directed to formalize past service and grant consequential benefits to the legal representative.

Table of Content
1. overview of employment history and prior legal proceedings for regularization. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's argument for equal pay and regularization based on long-term continuous service. (Para 3)
3. respondent's argument regarding non-applicability of regularization schemes and contractual employment. (Para 4)
4. analysis of parity between similarly situated employees and validation of continuous service. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. supreme court precedents on state obligations as a model employer and prevention of exploitation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. application of article 14 to prevent arbitrary denial of regularization to long-serving employees. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. final judicial order mandating regularization and consequential benefits for the employee. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Shah, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the legal representative – Smt. Kusum, wife of deceased employee Sunny against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 71/2019: ‘ Lrs of Applicant: Smt. Kusum w/o Late Sunny vs. Union of India ’ and Ors., by which, learned Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. and declined the request of regularization of service and grant of regular pay scale to the original applicant-deceased Sunny.

Factual Matrix:-

2. Brief facts of the case are as following: -

2.1 The original applicant Sunny had joined the office of Sub Post Office, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur on 03.09.1984 as part-time casual labour in the capacity of sweeper. His salary was being paid from contingency fund, with the following time to time pay rise mentioned in the petition: initially Rs. 27/- per day, then enhanced to Rs. 380/-, in the year 1999 he was being paid 755/- per month, which was enhanced to 4835/- per month, which was further enhanced in the year 2013 to Rs. 6365/- per month and in the month of October, 2015 he was being paid at the rate of Rs. 11,076/- per month.

2.2 The original applicant had worked at the said office until his death i.e. 24.01.2020. The original applicant had made a request to respondent authority vide representation dated 10.04.2017 to enhance his wages as per O.M. dated 22.01.2015 issued by Government of India. The original applicant had claimed that he has also made request to the respondent authorities to consider regularization of his service as he had been working since 1984 and even employees, who were appointed later than him, were also given the same benefits.

2.3 Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the original applicant preferred an O.A. No. 71/2019 before the CAT, Jodhpur seeking regularization of service on the ground of his long-time service as well as claiming parity with Vijesh Kumar, another part-time employee, at Sub Post Office Kacheri, Jodhpur, who had been granted the status of full time employee with regular pay scale by the learned Tribunal. In Vijesh Kumar’s case, he had filed O.A. No. 125/2005 praying for grant of status of full- time temporary employee and the learned Tribunal had allowed the same vide order dated 15.02.2006. He thereafter filed O.A. seeking regularization which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.09.2008. The respondent authorities challenged the order dated 18.09.2008 before this court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 11217/2009, and this court affirmed the order dated 18.09.2008. When the respondent authorities did not comply with the order dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal, Vijesh Kumar preferred a contempt petition, and during the pendency of the contempt petition, Vijesh Kumar’s service was regularised at the post of MTS (Group-C) vide order dated 22.03.2011. Consequently, the contempt petition of Vijesh Kumar was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2011.

2.4 The O.A. No. 71/2019 of the present applicant was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2019 on the grounds of delay and his case being distinguis