The State, acting as a model employer under the Constitution, is obligated to consider for regularization those daily-wage or temporary employees who have continuously performed essential, perennial duties on sanctioned posts for a decade or more, provided their initial appointment was irregular rather than illegal.

Order on Board

01/04/2026

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

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction for respondent authorities for considered the name of petitions for regularization since after completion of 10 years of service.

10.2 That, other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also, kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Petitioner No. 1 is working on the post of Care Taker and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.11.2013, the Petitioner No. 2 is working on the post of Cook and was also initially appointed as daily-wage employee on 01.03.2016, Petitioner No. 3 is working on the post of Chowkidar and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.11.2013, Petitioner No. 4 is working on the post of Chowkidar and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee prior to year 2013 and Petitioner No. 5 is working on the post of Care Taker and was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.03.2016 with the respondent department. He contended that the petitioners are working since last about more than 10 years on the said post and they have made several oral requests to the authorities for regularization of their services, however, till date, the respondent authorities have not considered the claim of petitioners for regularizing their services and therefore, he prays that direction be issued to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in the decision passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 2429/2025 ‘Dinesh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and other connected matters’ decided on 11.04.2025.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that perusal of the writ petition would show that the present petitioners have not submitted any representation before the respondent authorities raising their grievance as raised in this writ petition and therefore, if the petitioners submit a detailed representation before the concerned authorities, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 considering that the daily wage employee/temporary employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years and observed thus:-

“ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered