Clarifies the process and conditions for regularisation of temporary daily wage employees based on continued service and apex court precedent.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, in this writ petition, contend that they were appointed temporarily in various posts in the office of the 3^rd respondent herein on a daily wage basis and that they have been continuing so till date.

2. The learned counsel, Smt.Renju V., on behalf of the petitioners, points out that though there was a short break in the year 2011, all the petitioners are continuing. She would also add that at present, petitioners 7, 32 and 35 are not interested anymore in getting orders in this writ petition, and therefore, the claim of the rest of the petitioners alone needs to be considered in this writ petition.

3. This Court notices that the petitioners as above seek for regularisation with respect to the service with the 3^rd respondent herein. This Court further notices that the 3^rd respondent has advised for regularisation and ultimately, the regularisation has to come from the side of the 1^st respondent - State. This Court further notices that going by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6750 (SC)], in view of the continued employment of the petitioners with the 3^rd respondent, their past service is also to be reckoned while considering the question of regularisation.

4. In the light of the above, this writ petition would stand disposed of directing the 1^st respondent - State to consider the advice for regularisation from the 3^rd respondent herein, taking note of the continued employment of the petitioners, with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Depending on the orders to be issued by the 1^st respondent – State, the petitioners to be regularised.