Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 726

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ.
Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Ram Dev - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Secretary To Govt. Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5318 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10660 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1104 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11618 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22986 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3089 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 328 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 334 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 338 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 344 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3614 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3618 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3967 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4332 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4546 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4550 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4555 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4563 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 492 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5006 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 503 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5103 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 512 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7158 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8959 of 2025,
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit., Mr. R.S.Saluja, Mr. Karmendra Singh, Ms Adwaita Sharma, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. J.K. Kaushik, Mr. S.P. Singh, Ms Darshita for Mr. Suniel Purohit, Ms Kanishk Singhvi, Ms Varsha Bissa.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari, Mr. Kirta Ram Meghwal

The court affirmed that employees with long, uninterrupted service in government positions, labeled 'casual,' are entitled to regularization under fairness and justice principles in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Regularization of Casual Employees - The court references the ruling in Uma Devi (2006) and subsequent judgments which underscore the need for regularization of employees with over 10 years of continuous service performing perennial work. The petitioners argued that their claims for regularization were unjustly denied by the Tribunal. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Employment Rights - The essence of the judgment pertains to recognizing the distinctions between legal and illegal appointments, reinforcing that those whose positions are irregular but not illegal, after long service, are entitled to regularization. (Paras 17, 19)

(C) Reconsideration Required - The court directs the respondent department to fairly reconsider the cases of the petitioners for regularization expeditiously within two months, as the prior decisions failed to align with the principles laid out in relevant judgments. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners worked as Casual Workers for the Income Tax Department for up to 25 years but were denied regularization despite repeated applications. The Tribunal dismissed their claims citing the minimum requirements for regularization.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petitioners' claims and established that their substantial years of service warranted reconsideration for regularization, citing key Supreme Court rulings.

Issues: The court addressed the issue of the regularization of long-serving casual employees and the legal basis for their claim against the Tribunal's earlier decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach to regularization, stressing constitutional rights and fair employment practices, particularly for public service roles.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; respondent directed to reconsider the regularization requests of petitioners.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since the present batch of writ petitions arises out of a common judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), therefore, the same is being disposed of by this common order.

3. Briefly noted the facts relevant in the present cases are that the petitioners were working as Casual Workers in the respondent- Department and the period of their working ranges between 15 years to 25 years. The services of the petitioners in the respondent-department were without any interruption. Some of the employees approached the Tribunal by way of filing original applications in the year 2011 with the prayer that their services may be regularized, however, the relief sought for was not granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, some more original applications were filed by some of the similarly situated employees, but, the prayer for regularization was not granted. The petitioners after having litigated all these years again preferred the original applications before the Tribunal in the year 2020 with the prayer that the petitioners are serving in the department on different posts and they have rendered the services for more than 10 years, their services may be regularised, however, the original applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2024. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are working on different posts (different works) in the respondent department for more than 10 years and they are discharging their services without any interruption. Learned counsel further submit that there is perennial nature of work available in the respondent department and, therefore, the department is required to consider their cases for regularization. To buttress their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of:-

(1)Secretary, State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 ,

(2)Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in 2018 (8) SCC 238 ,

(3)Jaggo vs. Union of India (UOI) (SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024) decided on 20.12.2024,

(4) Shripal and Ors. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024) decided on January 31, 2025,

(5) Dharam Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. , reported in 2025 AIR Supreme Court 3897.

It is also contended that in similar set of facts in other States, respondent department has regularized the services of other employees working like the petitioners on respective posts. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, very fairly submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent department to reconsider the cases of the petitioners for regularization keeping in mind the provisions of notification dated 17.01.2011 as well as subsequent notifications issued by the Central Government and the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent department is not in a position to refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are serving in the department for last more than 10 years. He however submits that on earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners for regularization were considered and since they were not falling within the ambit of the guidelines enshrined in the case of Uma Devi (supra), therefore, their services were not regularized. However, learned counsel for the respondent department very fairly submits that the cases of the petitioners for regularization shall be reconsidered in the light of applicable notification dated 17.01.2011 as well as other subsequent notifications for the posts in question keeping in mind the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned above. Learned counsel assures this Court that f