Long-term service in irregular employment merits regularization despite procedural non-compliance, reaffirming equal treatment rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s) :-

"(i) To allow the instant petition by issuing writ of ‘mandamus’ directing the respondents to regularize/abs orption the services of the petitioner from the date of regularization of services of the junior employee/similarly situated employees with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To call the entire record in respect of the petitioner proper adjudication of the case.

(iii) Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the litigation."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working in the respondent Organization since the year 1986 and in the intervening period, his services were retrenched and he had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed award dated 10.07.2001 and it has been categorically found by the Labour Court that the petitioner is working as labourer since 07.11.1986 and he has been illegally retrenched from service in the year 1998. Consequently, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.4 to 11 have been regularized in service who have been engaged on daily wages after the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the Municipal Corporation is discriminatory.

4. Per contra, the Municipal Corporation has filed the reply and it is stated that the respondents No.4 to 11 who have been regularized have been regularized in terms of some orders passed by the Labour Court in their case and, therefore, those employees have been regularized. The petitioner never approached the Labour Court and now cannot seek parity with those employees. It is further contended that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents has considered the case of the petitioner for regularization vide Annexure R/5 dated 08.07.2025 and rejected his case on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner is illegal and, therefore, he cannot be regularized.

5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that initial engagement of the petitioner in the year 1986 is not in dispute and the petitioner having put in 38 years of service as on date is also not in dispute. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to place on record the appointment order as daily rated employee and, therefore, he is deemed to be an illegally appointed person who cannot be regularized.

6. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that there is distinction between irregular and illegal appointment. The Constitution Bench has considered various judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of illegal and irregular appointment and held as under:-

" 15. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public employment in this country, and the executive, or for that matter the Court, in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been followed. This right of the executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the court being in a position to direct that an appointment made in clear violation of t