Long continuous service (>10 years) as daily wagers on perennial essential duties entitles regularization consideration despite irregular initial engagement; distinguishes irregular from illegal appointments, rejecting outsourcing/termination defences.

O R D E R

Delivered by Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

As the subject matter in all the connected O.As are one and the same and the relief/s sought by the applicants are similar, merely having different dates would not in any way disturb the ultimate finding to be given by this Tribunal. Therefore, as requested by the counsel for either sides, all the O.As have been heard together and decided by a common order.

2. In the present original application, the applicants, who were initially engaged between 1995 – 2005 as daily wager to work on different posts in the office of CIT, Gwalior, are seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their services.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that since the applicants have been continuously working in casual capacity with the respondents, they are entitled for regularization. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant cited several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Referring to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 19.01.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 6626/2014 – Rajesh Saude & Ors and judgment dated 04.4.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 3639/2014 – Suresh Kumar Rajak & Anr, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid judgments, the respondents have regularized the services of the petitioners therein. Therefore, the applicants being similarly placed daily wager, are also entitled for regularization of their services. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited that judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580/2024 – Jaggo Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 – Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in above judgments, the applicant’s deserves consideration for regularization.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as daily wager without following regular recruitment process. Therefore, mere completion of many years of service does not entitled a daily wage employee to claim regularization. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity, therefore, granting regularization to the applicant would violate the rights of other eligible candidates who are waiting for regular recruitment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal – 2011 (2) SCC 429 and submitted that no direction can be issued to regularize/absorb unless the employee claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the original application being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.

5. Having given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we are of the view that the applicants’ long and uninterrupted service for the periods extending will beyond ten years cannot be ignored merely because of thei