Long-serving daily wagers entitled to regularization despite irregular initial appointment, per latest Supreme Court precedents overriding Uma Devi restrictions.

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The applicant has filed this OA seeking for direction to the respondents to regularize his service in the post of Daftary w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement by quashing the orders dated 21.06.2021 [A/12], 21.06.2021 [A/13) and letter dated 25.06.2021 [A/14]. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, taking into consideration the continuance of the applicant as a daily wager since 1999, throwing him from his engagement at this age amounts to snatching his livelihood offending to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prayed that taking into consideration thJea mggiloes Vtornse. Udenciiosino nosf oInf dthiea Haonnd’ bOlet hAepresx, Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Unio2n0 2o4f SInCdC iaO &nL Oinres .S, C 3826, Dharam Singh & Othe(r2s0 2V4s). 9S tSaCteC 3o2f 7U/.2P0 2&4 A(1n)o StChRe r1, 230, Shrip(Cailv ailn Adp Apnera.l Nvros.8. 5N5a8 goaf r2 0N1i8g, admisp, oGsehda ozfi aobna 1d9,. 08.2025), Bhola Nath Vs State of Jhark2h0a2n5d SaCnCd OOnrLsin, e SC 221, and 2026 SCC Online SC 129, he is entitled to be regularized retrospectively, which would protect his present and post retirement life and livelihood.

2. Respondents contested and objected the relief claimed in this OA on various grounds such as the initial recruitment of the applicant was not through any regular process of selection as per rules and, that, no indefeasible right accrued on a daily wager to claim such regularization dehors the rules etc. and, accordingly, have stated that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

3. After giving a thread bearing consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the records.

4. From the record, it appears that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 543 of 2015 alleging therein that he has been continuing since 1996 on daily wage basis and made representation for his regularization but the respondents sat over his said grievance. Accordingly, intervention of this Bench on his prayer for regularization was sought by him. The said OA was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with direction to consider and dispose of his representation. His representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 07.12.2015, which order he again challenged before this Bench in OA No. 141/2016 and this Bench disposed of the OA vide order dated 16.03.2021 directing therein as under:

10. In the above circumstances the matter is remanded back to respondents/competent authority “ for fresh consideration of the case of the applicant for his regularization in accordance with decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in para 44 of Uma Devi case and M L Kesari case, as the applicant has been continuing in the job in question since the month of March 1999 without the cover of order of any Tribunal or Court. He is continuing as against one sanctioned post and has got required qualification. The respondent department could not fill the post in question inspite of advertisement issued earlier as discussed in para 7 of this order.

11. In view of the above the respondents are directed to consider his representation in accordance with law and the above decisions and pass a speaking and reasoned order to be communicated to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5. Respondents rejected his prayer for regularization in order dated 21.06.2021 wherein it is stated that as per the record, the applicant has been engaged as daily rated worker in CGC for SC/ST, Bhubaneswar from March, 1999 to March, 2003 on non- continuing basis and continuously from April, 2003 onwards. The Recruitment Rules does not provide for regularizatio