State entities must act as model employers by ensuring fair, non-arbitrary treatment for long-serving, daily-wage employees performing perennial duties. Prolonged 'ad-hocism' and the denial of regularisation through mere contractual labelling is unconstitutional and requires timely, reasoned consideration of claims for permanent absorption.

ORDER ON BOARD

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

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction, to the Respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of services w.e.f. the date on which the petitioners are entitled for and to grant the petitioners all the consequential service benefits, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief(s), directions(s), which Hon’ble Court deems fit, and proper in the circumstances of the case. ”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are working as Daily Wage (Unskilled Labourers) under the Public Works Department, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham. He contended that the petitioners are working since last about more than 10 years on the said post and they have made several requests to the authorities for regularization of their services, however, no action has been taken till date. Similarly situated employees have been regularized. He further contended that petitioners have submitted representations (Annexure P/3) raising their grievance before the Respondents No. 6 which is also pending consideration and therefore, direction be issued to the Respondent No. 6 to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to Respondent No. 6 to consider and take decision on the representations (Annexure P/3) submitted by the petitioners, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. He submits that if the representation is pending consideration, 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 on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further