Regularization of daily-wage employees is not an absolute right arising from long service; it is a discretionary exercise subject to the existence of sanctioned posts and adherence to statutory recruitment rules. Retrospective service benefits are impermissible for individuals not previously borne in the regular cadre.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization - Daily-wage and contingency-paid employees - Executive policies regarding regularization do not create an automatic or indefeasible right - Regularization remains a discretionary administrative exercise subject to the availability of sanctioned posts, suitability, and fulfillment of recruitment rules. (Paras 8, 10, 13)

(B) Service Law - Retrospective service benefits - Grant of retrospective regularization or consequential monetary benefits from a date prior to being borne in a cadre is prohibited - Principles of service jurisprudence dictate that emoluments and pensionary benefits flow from regular service and cannot be claimed through judicial intervention in the absence of statutory entitlement. (Paras 11, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage worker for several decades. Following the abolition of the initial post, the petitioner continued in a contingency capacity. Claiming entitlement under government circulars, the petitioner sought regularization and consequential retiral benefits post-superannuation. The authorities rejected the claim citing lack of requisite educational qualifications and absence of sanctioned posts.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the executive instructions relied upon by the petitioner did not supersede statutory recruitment rules. It held that long service does not confer a vested right to regularization and that executive policies cannot compel the creation of posts nor override qualification requirements. Furthermore, claims for retrospective regularization after retirement are legally impermissible.

Issues: Whether a daily-wage employee, after superannuation, can claim regularization and consequential benefits based on long service and executive circulars, despite not being appointed to a regularized post and lacking prescribed qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization is not an automatic outcome of long-term service and must adhere to prescribed recruitment rules and the availability of sanctioned posts. Executive circulars cannot mandate regularization in violation of statutory recruitment criteria. Retrospective claims for regularization and benefits post-retirement, where the individual was never part of the formal cadre, are inconsistent with established service principles.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Order on Board

07/01/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :-

“10.1- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner.

10.2- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue a writ of mandamus and to command the respondents to comply the circular dated 05.03.2008.

10.3- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to grant regularization to the petitioner from 13- 8-2008 till the date of retirement 30.06.2021 and to direct the respondents to pay the regular pay scale to the petitioner from 13-8- 2008 till the age of 62 years i.e. 30.06.2021.

10.4- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity and pension with interest.

10.5- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that, the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent Department as a daily-wage Tractor Driver prior to 31.08.1987. The petitioner has been in continuous service under respondent No. 2 since his initial engagement and has been discharging his duties diligently and without interruption. His salary has regularly been paid by the respondents and credited into his bank account, thereby acknowledging the continuity and subsistence of his service. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.08.1987, the post of Tractor Driver held by the petitioner was abolished. However, without any break in service, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioner on casual/contingency wages with effect from 01.09.1987 and assigned him duties as a Vehicle Driver. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to perform duties of driving departmental vehicles, including LMV vehicles, and was formally assigned such duties vide order dated 03.11.2007. Thus, from 01.09.1987 till his date of superannuation on 30.06.2021, the petitioner continuously worked as a Driver under the respondent Department. The State Government, through the General Administration Department, issued a circular dated 05.03.2008, followed by another circular dated 16.08.2012, providing for regularization of daily-wage, work- charged, and contingency-paid employees who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988. Clause ‘A’ of the circular dated 05.03.2008 specifically mandates regularization of such employees and does not prescribe any requirement of educational qualification for those appointed prior to 31.12.1988. Despite the petitioner squarely falling within the ambit of the said circular, the respondents failed to regularize his services. On the contrary, several similarly situated employees junior to the petitioner were granted the benefit of regularization by the respondents, thereby violating the principle of parity and equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6080/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.09.2018 with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the petitioner’s claim and decide the same in light of the circular dated 05.03.2008. However, when the respondents failed to comply with the said order within the stipulated period, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 198/2019. In the contempt proceedings, the respondents submitted a reply stating that the petitioner’s claim could not be considered due to non-availability of sanctioned vacant posts, while simultaneously stating that steps were being taken to increase the number of posts. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6166/2019 challenging the respondents’ order dated 03.04.2019. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.08.2019 with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the State Government policy dated 05.03.2008. Despite repeated judicial directions, the respondents agai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JPunaram Sahu – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 8597 of 2023

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J
Punaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 8597 of 2023