Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 297

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, Sunil Beniwal, JJ.
Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi - Petitioner
Versus
Sumer Lal Chouhan S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Chauhan - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7624 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat with Mr. Rishabh Dadhich and Mr. J.K. Suthar.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Rathore, Ms. Saumya Choudhary

Long-term casual employees performing essential functions are eligible for regularization despite formal part-time labels. However, this claim is contingent upon an active employer-employee relationship, and those who have already left service are limited to receiving benefits accrued only during their active tenure.

Headnote:(A) Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 - Clause 4 - Eligibility for temporary status - Regularization claim - Long-term casual employment that mirrors sanctioned roles, regardless of 'part-time' classification, entitles workers to regularization when services are proven continuous and integral for an extensive period. (Paras 6, 9)

(B) Employment Law - Termination of relationship - Regularization - Where an employee voluntarily terminates employment before the final adjudication of a regularization claim, the right to prospective regularization is rendered void, limiting relief strictly to benefits accrued during the actual tenure of service. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
Workers engaged as daily wage earners sought regularization under a government scheme, asserting continuous service spanning decades. The department contested these claims, arguing that the individuals were merely part-time workers and failed to meet mandatory service duration requirements. A lower administrative tribunal allowed the claims, directing the department to extend temporary status and consider regularization.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that labelling long-standing service as 'part-time' does not mask the reality of essential, continuous work performed by the employees. Given the prolonged duration of service, denying regularization would be unjust. However, the court distinguished between employees still in service and those who had already left, as regularization is fundamentally linked to an active employment relationship.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether 'part-time' casual workers are eligible for regularization if they have served for an extensive period without interruption, and whether individuals who have ceased their employment are entitled to the same regularization benefits as active employees.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization is a remedial mechanism for irregular appointments that have evolved into stable, necessary functions within a department. Continuous, satisfactory performance over decades transforms the nature of an engagement, making rigid adherence to initial labels or procedural formalities unreasonable. Nonetheless, the right to be regularized necessitates an ongoing employer-employee relationship, precluding those who have resigned or left the service from claiming prospective employment status.

Result: Petition dismissed in respect of currently employed workers and partially allowed for those who resigned, limiting their entitlement to benefits accrued up to the date they ceased employment.

Table of Content
1. litigation history and procedural background of the employment dispute (Para 1 , 2)
2. conflicting claims regarding eligibility for regularization under the 1993 scheme (Para 3 , 4)
3. interpretation of the 1993 scheme requirements and appraisal of departmental evidence (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. application of jurisprudence regarding continuous service and eligibility of part-time vs permanent employees (Para 9)
5. final court order granting restricted relief based on duration of service (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

Sunil Beniwal, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners questioning the correctness of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 144/2005 filed by the respondents, whereby the O.A. was disposed of by granting temporary status to the respondents herein and directing the petitioners to consider them for regularisation along with consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondents had initially filed O.A. claiming regularisation of their services from the date of their engagement, asserting that they had been working as daily wage Group-D employees since 1992. They also challenged the tender notice dated 18.05.2005 issued by the petitioners for outsourcing services, contending that the same was arbitrary and illegal in the absence of regularisation of their services. The petitioners contested the claim, stating that the respondents were part-time casual workers, had failed to establish continuous service since 1992, and were not covered under the one-time regularisation scheme dated 10.09.1993.

2.1 The Tribunal initially dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 22.02.2006 on the ground that the respondents did not satisfy the eligibility conditions under the applicable scheme. The said order was challenged before the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1298/2006, wherein, during pendency, representations of the respondents were considered and rejected by the Department vide a reasoned order dated 12.01.2015, which remained unchallenged.

2.2 Subsequently, the High Court, vide order dated 05.10.2017, set aside the order dated 22.02.2006 passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

2.3 During the remanded proceedings, the respondents filed additional documents through Misc. Application No. 290/40/2019, which were taken on record without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners to respond, despite the fact that such documents had already been considered and rejected by the Department vide its order dated 12.01.2015.

2.4 Thereafter, the Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 28.02.2019, allowed the Original Application, primarily relying upon internal correspondences to conclude that the respondents were working full-time and were entitled to temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme of 1993’), and consequently directed their consideration for regularisation.

2.5 Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2019, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while arguing the writ petition, made following submissions :-

(i)- The respondents, being part-time workers and not having been engaged prior to 01.09.1993, were not covered under the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 governing regularisation and the Scheme of 1993.

(ii)- The Tribunal gravely erred in relying upon additional documents placed on record by the respondents through Misc. Application No.290/40/2019 without affording any opportunity to the Department to rebut the same. The said application was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2019, and internal departmental correspondence was taken on record without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Department.

(iii)- The Tribunal, solely on the basis of such interna