AI Overview...

Long Service as Casual Worker - Employees working continuously for 28 years as casual workers may be entitled to regularization, especially if they have been performing duties against sanctioned posts and their service has been uninterrupted for a long period. Courts have recognized that long-standing casual service can create a legitimate expectation for regularization, provided the service was against a sanctioned post and continuous. Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court
Eligibility Criteria for Regularization - Regular casual workers who have completed at least 10 years of continuous service are often considered eligible for regularization under schemes like the RCW Scheme. Such schemes benefit workers by granting certain entitlements like earned leave, casual leave, and advances, even if they are not ultimately regularized. However, mere long service without working against a sanctioned post does not automatically confer regularization rights. Mithu B. Marak VS State of Meghalaya - Meghalaya
Discrimination and Similar Cases - Discrimination in regularization, especially when similarly situated workers with comparable service durations have been regularized, can be challenged. The courts have emphasized the need for equitable treatment among employees with similar service records. Ushaben Joshi VS Union of India - Supreme Court
Part-time and Temporary Workers - Part-time, ad hoc, or daily wage service, even if long-standing, generally does not entitle employees to regularization unless they have worked against sanctioned posts and meet specific criteria. The courts have consistently held that such workers cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for regularization purely based on long service. Secretary to Government for Women & Child Welfare Department, Puducherry VS S. Anbu - Madras, STATE OF GUJARAT VS MAHESH RAMJIBHAI PURABIA - Gujarat, Shanti Devi VS Delhi Jal Board - Delhi, Chandan Das VS State of Tripura - Tripura
Regularization Based on Continuous Service - Employees who have served continuously for more than 10 years, particularly in roles like casual or daily wage workers, and who have been engaged against sanctioned posts, are often considered for regularization. The courts have directed authorities to verify whether such workers were working against vacant sanctioned posts and to consider their cases accordingly. Sujit Kumar Singha VS State Of Assam - Gauhati, Tirath Singh vs Supplies And Transport - Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandan Das VS State of Tripura - Tripura
Legal Precedents and Judgments - Supreme Court judgments reinforce that long service alone does not guarantee regularization unless the employee was working against a sanctioned post and there was a clear scheme or policy for regularization. The courts have also emphasized the importance of following proper procedures for appointment and regularization. Tirath Singh vs Supplies And Transport - Central Administrative Tribunal, STATE OF GUJARAT VS MAHESH RAMJIBHAI PURABIA - Gujarat

Analysis and Conclusion

A person working as a casual worker for 28 years may be entitled to regularization if they have been continuously employed against a sanctioned post and their service record aligns with legal criteria. Long service alone is not sufficient; the worker's engagement must have been against a sanctioned vacancy, and procedural norms must have been followed. Courts have favored regularization in cases where workers have served for extended periods under such conditions, but each case depends on verification of employment against sanctioned posts and adherence to scheme provisions. Therefore, the individual in question should be considered for regularization if these criteria are met, especially given the lengthy uninterrupted service.

Is a 28-Year Casual Worker Entitled to Regularisation in India?

In the realm of Indian labour law, one common yet complex question arises: A Person is Working in a Post Since Last 28 Years as Casual Worker Whether he is Entitled for Regularisation. This issue touches on the rights of long-serving casual or daily wage workers, who often toil for decades without the benefits of permanent employment. While long service creates a compelling case, regularisation is not automatic and hinges on several legal factors.

This blog post delves into the nuances of this entitlement, drawing from judicial precedents, constitutional principles, and government schemes. We'll explore whether 28 years of continuous service tips the scales toward regularisation, while emphasizing that this is general information—not personalized legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.

Overview of Casual Worker Regularisation

Casual workers, daily wagers, or temporary employees in government or public sector roles frequently seek regularisation after years of service. Courts have recognized that prolonged engagement, especially against sanctioned posts, may entitle workers to permanence, safeguarding against exploitation.

However, regularisation is typically a policy-driven process, not a vested right. Key considerations include:- Duration and continuity of service.- Whether the work was against a vacant, sanctioned post.- Performance of duties akin to regular employees.- Absence of discrimination compared to similarly placed workers.

For someone with 28 years of service, the case strengthens significantly, as courts view denial as potentially violative of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court

Key Legal Principles Governing Regularisation

Continuous Service and Constitutional Rights

Long-term service is a cornerstone. Courts have held that employees working for considerable periods, like 28 years, cannot be perpetually denied regularisation, as it infringes fundamental rights. This principle stems from cases where long-serving workers were treated unequally compared to regularised peers. Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court

Typically, completion of 10 years of continuous service qualifies workers for consideration under various schemes. For instance, regular casual workers (RCWs) gain entitlements like leave and advances post-10 years, paving the way for potential regularisation. Binoy Bhushan Debnath VS State of Tripura - Tripura Rakesh Kumar VS State - J&K

In one case, a petitioner working on a Class-III post since 1991 (over 26 years at the time) was deemed entitled to confirmation and full salary, highlighting how extended service bolsters claims. As the petitioner is working on class-III post since last 26 years, he is entitled for confirmation in class III post and also entitled for getting the entire salary of the said post.Naresh Prasad Keshri VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1050 - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1050

Role of Sanctioned Posts and Policy

A critical caveat: service must be against a sanctioned post. Mere long service without this does not confer rights. The respondent claims to be a casual labour and any person working as a casual labour in Government department... despite the fact that he completes 240 days of work he cannot claim any right of regularisation. An appointment can be made only to a existing post or sanctioned post...MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KISHORE KONDIRAM JAGADE - 2005 Supreme(Bom) 1829 - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1829

Regularisation remains discretionary, influenced by employer policies, post availability, and qualifications. Consultation with Employment Exchanges may apply for skilled roles but is often waived for unskilled ones. ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPT - Allahabad Hari Nandan Prasad VS Employer I/R to Mangmt. of FCI - Supreme Court General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai VS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai - Madras

Schemes like the RCW Scheme offer relaxations, such as upper age limits, for eligible casual workers. While considering such regularisation, a casual worker may be given relaxation in the upper age limit only if at the time of initial recruitment as a casual ....MURTI DEVI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4130 - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 4130

Judicial Precedents Supporting Regularisation

The Supreme Court and High Courts have shaped this landscape:- Long service against sanctioned posts: Workers with over 10 years, performing regular duties, are often directed for regularisation after verification. Niadar VS Delhi Administration - Supreme Court Radhey Sham VS State of Jammu & Kashmir - J&K Sujit Kumar Singha VS State Of Assam - Gauhati- Prohibition on discrimination: Non-regularisation of long-servers when peers are absorbed is arbitrary. Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court Ushaben Joshi VS Union of India - Supreme Court

For example, in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya cases, workers starting as daily wage casuals since 2007 were certified for long service, supporting claims. Sri Sankar Saha vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2640 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2640

Conversely, courts caution against 'litigious employment': Even temporary, adhoc or daily wage service for a long number of years... will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation since he is not working in the sanc....Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department VS J. Poongothai Assistant, Government High School, Mittamandagapattai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3455 - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3455

Precedents affirm: Employees who have served continuously for more than 10 years... are often considered for regularization.Tirath Singh vs Supplies And Transport - Central Administrative Tribunal Chandan Das VS State of Tripura - Tripura

Counterarguments and Limitations

Not all long-service claims succeed:- No sanctioned post: Backdoor entries or unsanctioned roles bar regularisation. STATE OF GUJARAT VS MAHESH RAMJIBHAI PURABIA - Gujarat Shanti Devi VS Delhi Jal Board - Delhi- Part-time/ad-hoc nature: Purely temporary service, even decades-long, lacks legitimate expectation without policy backing. Secretary to Government for Women & Child Welfare Department, Puducherry VS S. Anbu - Madras- Procedural lapses: Initial irregular appointments undermine claims. Mithu B. Marak VS State of Meghalaya - Meghalaya

Long service alone is insufficient; verification of sanctioned vacancies is essential. Courts prioritize proper recruitment processes.

Steps to Claim Regularisation

If you've served 28 years as a casual worker:1. Gather proof: Service certificates, pay slips, and duty rosters.2. Make a representation: Approach the employer citing schemes and precedents.3. File a writ petition: In High Court under Article 226, referencing Articles 14/16 and key judgments.4. Seek verification: Insist on checking against sanctioned posts.

Success often depends on policy and vacancies, but 28 years creates a strong basis, especially if duties mirror regulars'.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

A casual worker with 28 years of service may be entitled to regularisation, particularly if against a sanctioned post, continuous, and non-discriminatory. Judicial trends favor such workers, balancing equity with policy. However, outcomes vary—long service builds a legitimate expectation but isn't guaranteed.

Key Takeaways:- 10+ years often triggers eligibility. Rakesh Kumar VS State - J&K- Sanctioned posts are mandatory. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KISHORE KONDIRAM JAGADE - 2005 Supreme(Bom) 1829 - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1829- Challenge discrimination via courts. Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court- Act promptly with legal counsel.

This post is for informational purposes only. Laws evolve, and cases are fact-specific. Seek professional advice.

References:- Om Prakash Banerjee VS State Of West Bengal - Supreme Court Binoy Bhushan Debnath VS State of Tripura - Tripura Rakesh Kumar VS State - J&K ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPT - Allahabad Hari Nandan Prasad VS Employer I/R to Mangmt. of FCI - Supreme Court General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai VS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai - Madras Niadar VS Delhi Administration - Supreme Court Radhey Sham VS State of Jammu & Kashmir - J&K Naresh Prasad Keshri VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1050 - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1050 MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KISHORE KONDIRAM JAGADE - 2005 Supreme(Bom) 1829 - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1829 MURTI DEVI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4130 - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 4130 Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department VS J. Poongothai Assistant, Government High School, Mittamandagapattai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3455 - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3455 Sri Sankar Saha vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2640 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2640

#CasualWorkerRights, #LabourLawIndia, #Regularisation

Tirath Singh vs Supplies And Transport - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1765

Casual labour/Worker and Daily Rated Worker are defined under Section 2(b) and (f) of the Rules of 1994 which reads as under:- "(b) "Casual Labour/Worker" means a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual services ... subject them to a process verification as to whether they are ....

STATE OF GUJARAT VS MAHESH RAMJIBHAI PURABIA - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1443

Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. ... Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to cla....

Sri Sankar Saha vs The Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2640

He further submitted that applicant had started working in the said post since 2007 at JNV,immediately after opening of the said Vidyalaya, but his engagement letter was as Daily Wage Casual Worker. ... On 21.09.2011, the Principal (I & C) Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (NVS) issued a certificate certifying that the applicant had been working in the Vidyalaya as a Daily Sage Casual....

Shanti Devi VS Delhi Jal Board - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1845

However, since the office of Respondent No.1 was not big enough, therefore, full time Sweepress was not required. Furthermore, it was also stated that no assurance was given to the Petitioner that she would be entitled to regularisation of her services. ... She has been working against a permanent post and in spite of the fact that the Respondent had a vacant post, the services of the Pe....

Chandan Das VS State of Tripura - 2022 Supreme(Tri) 399

There is no dispute that the petitioner has been working as the attendant (Casual Worker) by discharging his duties and responsibilities on full-time basis. He has served the respondents more than ten years without break. ... G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is working as the plantation worker and not as casual worker#HL_END....

Naresh Prasad Keshri VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1050

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is working on Class-III post since 1991 and the respondents have just to comply the order of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1116/2007, issued a formal order of appointment without fixing his pay in Class-III post. As the petitioner is working on class-III post since last 26 years, he is entitled for confirmation in class III post and also entitled for getting the entire salary of the said post.

MURTI DEVI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2016 Supreme(Del) 4130

If a Department wants to make any departure from the above guidelines, it should obtain the prior concurrence of the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Personnel and Training. The regularisation of the services of the casual workers will continue to be governed by the instructions issued by this Department in this regard. While considering such regularisation, a casual worker may be given relaxation in the upper age limit only if at the time of initial recruitment as a casual ....

Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department VS J. Poongothai Assistant, Government High School, Mittamandagapattai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3455

8. The gist of the above decision, in essence, holds that mere continuation of service by temporary or adhoc or daily wage employee under the interim order of the Court would not confer upon an employee any right to be absorbed into service as the service will be litigious employment. Even temporary, adhoc or daily wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation since he is not working in the sanc....

Rakesh Kumar VS State - 2015 Supreme(J&K) 110

The objection of respondents that the petitioner was only a casual worker and not a daily rated worker, as such, is not entitled to regularization, is also not tenable in law, for the reasons, that person who has been working for the last more than seven years cannot be termed to be a casual labourer. The break of one or two days in between the spells of 59 days for which the petitioner was engaged from time to time is of no consequence and it cannot deprive him of his status....

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KISHORE KONDIRAM JAGADE - 2005 Supreme(Bom) 1829

The respondent claims to be a casual labour and any person working as a casual labour in Government department, in any of the statutory organisations or in any Government agencies, despite the fact that he completes 240 days of work he cannot claim any right of regularisation. An appointment can be made only to a existing post or sanctioned post, when there is no post, the appointment to a non-existing post is impermissible in law. The law has been made very clear by the Supr....