Regularization of daily-wage or casual employees is not an automatic right upon completing 240 days of service. It remains contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts and adherence to government policy, which may legally mandate prospective effect to ensure administrative and fiscal sustainability.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(3) - Public Employment - Regularization of causal and daily-wage employees - Policy decision - Prospective effect - Employment notification explicitly stated nature of service as temporary with possibility of reduction or increase in workforce - Petitioners accepted terms of daily-wage appointment without protest - Regularization of services is subject to availability of sanctioned vacancies and government permission - Whether regularization could be granted with retrospective effect was the central question - Constitutional court does not act as appellate authority to substitute its view on government policy unless it is arbitrary or discriminatory. (Paras 3, 14, 16, 20 and 24)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - Entitlement - Mere completion of 240 days of service does not confer an automatic right to regularization - It is a criteria subject to availability of vacant posts and policy dictates of the employer - Courts should not interfere with classification introduced by policy decisions when based on intelligible differentia and when identifying specific groups of beneficiaries. (Paras 14, 16, 17 and 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged on a daily-wage basis pursuant to a recruitment notification which clearly specified the temporary nature of the posts and the absence of any immediate right to permanent absorption. Their services were subsequently regularized with prospective effect as per government policy directives which were issued in the context of agreements reached between the employer and labor associations. The petitioners challenged the prospective date of their regularization, claiming they were entitled to regularization from the date of initial appointment or upon completion of 240 days of service.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the government’s policy to regularize causal employees with prospective effect was a rational decision based on financial constraints and available vacancies. The court emphasized that the terms of the employment notice were accepted by the petitioners without objection and that the administrative policy cannot be declared arbitrary simply because the petitioners desire an earlier effective date. The court noted that granting retrospective regularization would cause disruption to the seniority of other employees already regularized under the same policy.

Issues: Whether seasonal or daily-wage employees have a vested legal right to claim regularization from the date of completion of 240 days of service, and whether the government's policy of prospective regularization is arbitrary and violates the right to equality under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization of daily-wage employment is not an automatic right but is contingent upon the existence of sanctioned vacancies and government policy. Prospective regularization of identified classes of employees, implemented to manage administrative and fiscal feasibility, constitutes a valid classification and does not violate the principle of equality provided it is not inherently arbitrary.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. parties dispute regularization date for casual employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners allege discriminatory and arbitrary regularization practices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. policy and vacancies govern validity of regularization. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 20)
4. judicial review focuses on prospective vs. retrospective regularization. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. prospective regularization is valid under policy and mou. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved is identical, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145, 01.07.2009 and the proceedings dated 04.07.2009 and 22.07.2009 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of completion of 240 days as extended to other similarly situated persons.

3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.14991 of 2010 are discussed hereunder:

(a) The 2ndrespondent Corporation issued Notification No. P2/684(3)/99-HCR on 10.10.1999 to fill 973 vacant posts of Grade-II Conductor and 946 vacant posts of Grade-II Driver in the Hyderabad City Region. Pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioners applied for the post of Grade-II Conductor. The Selection Committee selected the petitioners in the year 2000, and they were also sent for training. However, the respondents did not issue appointment orders.

(b) Meanwhile, all the employees of the 2nd respondent Corporation went on strike on 19.10.2001, and the strike continued for about 21 days. At that time, the 2nd respondent issued a wide publication stating that anyone who worked during the strike period, i.e., October/November 2001, would be absorbed immediately. The petitioners worked during the strike period when the regular employees were on strike. They were employed on a daily-wage basis in the years 2001–2002 as conductors on various dates, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. They continued in service on a daily-wage basis until their services were regularized with effect from 01.07.2009.

(c) As per the circular instructions, the 2ndrespondent’s Corporation has been regularizing the services of daily wage employees working as conductors, drivers, and shramiks twice a year, i.e., with effect from 1st August and 1st January of that year, based on the completion of 240 days of service as on 31st July and 31st December of that year from the initial date of joining. The petitioners had completed 240 days long back in the years 2001 and 2002. Based on the instructions of the 2ndrespondent, dated 04.07.2009, the 3rdrespondent issued proceedings dated 22.07.2009 regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.07.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the applications were invited to fill up Grade-II vacant Conductor posts, which cadre posts are borne under the APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. The petitioners were recruited in accordance with the said Regulations. However, at the time of appointment, they were treated as daily wage Grade-II Conductors. The post of daily wage Grade-II Conductor is not a cadre post borne under the Recruitment Regulations, 1966. Therefore, treating the petitioners as daily wage employees violates of the APSRTC Recruitment Regulations. The petitioners are entitled to be treated as regular employees with effect from the date of their joining service.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that, when the petitioners enquired with the respondents regarding the adoption of a different method in regularizing their services only with effect from 01.07.2009 instead of 01.08.2002 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18368

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNamavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JK. Srinu – AppellantVersusGovt., of A.P. – RespondentWrit Petition No.14991 of 2010 | Writ Petition No.7383 of 2011

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
K. Srinu – Appellant
Versus
Govt., of A.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.14991 of 2010 | Writ Petition No.7383 of 2011