Part-time workers who perform full-time duties are entitled to regularization of services based on long service, despite being designated as part-time, which violates equal protection under the Constitution.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions and the reliefs sought therein are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, claiming that they are working on a part-time basis as Assistants in Veterinary Sub-Centres, have filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to fill up the posts of Animal Husbandry Assistants on the basis of the letter dated 08.05.2012 issued by the second respondent, without absorbing and/or regularising their services. The writ petitions were allowed on 16.07.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-State preferred W.A. Nos. 2024, 2019, 2023, 2025 and 2026 of 2022. The Division Bench, by order dated 22.04.2025, allowed the writ appeals, set aside the order passed by the writ court, and remitted the matter to the writ court for fresh consideration on merits, on the basis of all documents that may be produced by the petitioners as well as the respondents in support of their respective stands. The State also undertook to keep five posts vacant so that no prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioners during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions.

3. The petitioners state that they were appointed as part-time workers as Veterinary Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department and that they had put in more than twelve years of service as on the date of filing of the writ petitions. The date of appointment of each of the writ petitioners is set out in the tabular column below.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were appointed as part-time workers, they discharged the duties of full-time employees and that their appointments were against sanctioned posts. However, they were denied regularisation of their services in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006.

5. Ms. K. Abirami, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to various documents and judgments, submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Veterinary Assistants to assist the Veterinary Doctors and that they discharged the duties of permanent employees and that the work performed by them is perennial in nature. The competent authorities have also recommended the cases of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. However, the respondent-State has refused to regularise the services of the writ petitioners on the ground that they are only part-time workers and were not appointed against sanctioned posts, which, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the documents produced in support of the petitioners’ case. The learned counsel further submitted that the documents placed on record clearly establish that the petitioners were working against sanctioned posts continuously for more than ten years and are therefore entitled to absorption/regularisation of their services in the light of the applicable Government Orders and the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on the following decisions;

i. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union ([2024] SCC Online SC 270)

ii. Sheo Narain Nagar & Others Vs. State of UP ( [2018] 13 SCC 432 )

iii. Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India ( [2024] 9 SCC 327 )

iv. Jaggo VS. Union of India ( [2024] SCC Online SC 3826)

v. M. Sivappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (W.P.No.23823 of 2023, dated 26.02.2024).

6. Per contra, Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were engaged as part time wo