A daily wage worker cannot claim retrospective regularization to the date of initial engagement in the absence of a statutory rule or policy; length of service alone does not create such a right.

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Petition, preferred by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the order dated 21.01.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’], whereby O.A. No.3732/2014 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether a person who was engaged on daily wage basis and whose services were subsequently regularized, is entitled to claim regularization with retrospective effect from the date of his initial

engagement, in the absence of any statutory provision, rule or policy conferring such benefit.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 11.08.1989 with the Respondents. It is not in dispute that such engagement was not pursuant to a regular recruitment process under the applicable recruitment rules governing the post in question. The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1087/2011 before the CAT seeking a direction to the Respondents to regularize his services. The said O.A. was disposed of on 22.02.2012 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s case for regularization in terms of the applicable selection process. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents filed W.P.(C) No. 6056/2011 before this Court challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CAT on 22.02.2012. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Respondents, vide order dated 15.04.2013, regularized the services of the Petitioner as Lower Division Clerk [‘LDC’]. The regularization was made effective from the date of issuance of the order. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of, while granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh O.A. in case he had any surviving grievance with respect to the date from which the regularization had been granted.

5. The Petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No. 3732/2014 before the CAT seeking regularization with effect from 11.08.1989, i.e., the date

of his initial engagement. The Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, dismissed the said O.A. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner has since retired upon attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2024.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had been working continuously since 11.08.1989 and that the Respondents unjustifiably delayed regularizing his services. It is contended that the Petitioner is entitled to regularization from the date of his initial appointment. In the alternative, it is argued that the Petitioner’s pay ought to be re-fixed by granting increments notionally from 11.08.1989.

6.1. Learned senior counsel places reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., ((2024) 12 SCR 1235) and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., ((2025) 8 SCR 1026) to contend that long and uninterrupted service ought not to be ignored while granting the benefit of regularization.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Petitioner was engaged purely on daily wage basis and that regularization granted vide order dated 15.04.2013 cannot be treated as retrospective in the absence of any rule or policy to that effect. It is further contended that retrospective regularization would disturb the settled seniority of regularly appointed employees.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

8. This Court has considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1989. His services were regularized on 15.04.2013. The attention of the Court has not been drawn to any statutory rule, executive instruction, policy decision or scheme entitling the Petitioner