Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dtd.06.07.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-17. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization was rejected.

4. It is contended that all the Petitioners were engaged as DLR w.e.f. 01.10.1993, 26.10.1993 and 02.11.1993 respectively.

4.1. It is also contended that while so continuing, vide order dtd.23.08.2018 under Annexure-5, they were allowed in temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, on the face of such long continuance as DLR from the year 1993, when Petitioners were not regularized, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34077 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.19.10.2023 under Annexure-11 when directed Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioners’ claim to get the benefit of regularization, the same was rejected vide order dtd.30.01.2024 under Annexure-12.

4.2. Challenging such order, Petitioners again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8684 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.15.04.2024 while disposing the Writ Petition, granted liberty to the Petitioners to make a fresh application for consideration of their grievance to get the benefit of regularization. In terms of the said order, Petitioners when moved Opposite Party No.2, such a claim was again rejected vide the impugned order dtd.06.07.2024 under Annexure-17.

4.3. Placing reliance on the decisions taken in the case Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015(8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab , 2013 (14) SCC 65 and recent decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, it is contended that Petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of regularization and appropriate direction be issued in that regard with quashing of the impugned order dtd.06.07.2024 under Annexure-17.

4.4. In the case of Uma Devi, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-44 has held as follows:-

"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the