The State, as a model employer, cannot exploit casual employees through perpetual temporary status for perennial work, and irregularly appointed employees with over a decade of continuous service are entitled to have their claims for regularization considered in accordance with constitutional principles of fairness and equity.

O R D E R

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has filed this O.A. stating inter alia that he is still continuing to discharge the duties under the respondents since 2009 uninterruptedly on daily wage basis and at a subsequent date he is on receipt of 1/30th of minimum pay scale. But the respondents issued letter dated 16.01.2025 directing dis-engagement of the persons engaged after issuance of DOP&T OM dated 04/10.12.2008 which is bad in law. Hence, the applicant has prayed for direction to the respondents to regularize him from the date of his initial engagement by quashing the letter dated 16.01.2025.

2. Respondents have filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant by stating that since the applicant was engaged on casual basis without following the process of rules he is not entitled to the relief sought for in this O.A. However, the continuance of the applicant on daily wage basis since 2009 even till date have not been disputed.

3. Applicant has filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondents inter alia reiterating the grounds more or less raised in the O.A.

4. After hearing the parties perused the records.

5. We find that law in the matter of regularization has under gone sea changes, and suffice it, to place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the following cases. The relevant portion of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court are quoted herein below:

(i) Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR –SC-865-

“13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Sri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petit