Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Jaggo VS Union Of India...

Jaggo VS Union Of India - 2025 3 Supreme 26 : A person can claim regularisation of their services if they have rendered long, uninterrupted, and continuous service for a period extending well beyond ten years, performed indispensable duties that were integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization, and their employment was not through any illegal or surreptitious route. The nature of the work must be essential and ongoing, and the employee must have no adverse service record. Courts must look beyond the surface label of ''''temporary'''' or ''''contractual'''' appointments and consider the actual reality of employment, including sustained contribution, recurrent and regular performance of duties akin to sanctioned posts, and the absence of mala fide or illegalities in the appointment. The regularisation is warranted when the work was inherently required on a regular basis and the employee''''s role was indispensable, especially when no other personnel were engaged for the same tasks during their tenure.Checking relevance for Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai VS Thiru R. Govindaswamy...

Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai VS Thiru R. Govindaswamy - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 129 : A person can claim regularisation of services only if they were appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment process in accordance with relevant rules, against sanctioned vacant posts, through an open competitive process. Mere continuation of service, even for over 10 years, does not confer a right to regularisation if the employee was not working against a sanctioned post. Part-time, temporary, or ad hoc employees cannot claim regularisation, nor can they claim parity in salary with regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The right to claim regularisation must arise from a legal basis such as a contract or statute, and courts cannot issue directions for regularisation that would violate the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16. Additionally, schemes providing for regularisation with a cut-off date do not allow those appointed after the cut-off to claim extension of the date or demand fresh schemes.Checking relevance for Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai VS Thiru R. Govindaswamy...

Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai VS Thiru R. Govindaswamy - 2014 2 Supreme 432 : A person can claim regularisation of services only if they were appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment process in accordance with relevant rules, against a sanctioned vacant post, through an open competitive process. Mere long-term service, even if continuous for over 10 years, does not entitle a temporary, ad hoc, daily-wage, or part-time employee to regularisation. Regularisation cannot be granted if the appointment was not made against a sanctioned post, or if it violates the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16. Part-time employees are not entitled to regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts, and courts cannot issue directions for their absorption or permanent continuance. Sympathy or sentiment cannot substitute for a legal right to regularisation.Checking relevance for Jacob M. Puthuparambil: Jacob M. Puthuparambil: P. Mohanan: Sasidharan C. P. : C. A. Jose: Mary C. L. : Nazar K. M. : P. V. Sasikumar: Parassala Sivanandan: M. S. Sreekumar: P. B. Prasadchandran: C. V. Balakrishnan: Abdul Buriyain O. H. : A. G. Dasankunju VS Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: State Of Kerala: State Of Kerala: State Of Kerala: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water...

Jacob M. Puthuparambil: Jacob M. Puthuparambil: P. Mohanan: Sasidharan C. P. : C. A. Jose: Mary C. L. : Nazar K. M. : P. V. Sasikumar: Parassala Sivanandan: M. S. Sreekumar: P. B. Prasadchandran: C. V. Balakrishnan: Abdul Buriyain O. H. : A. G. Dasankunju VS Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: State Of Kerala: State Of Kerala: State Of Kerala: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water Authority: Kerala Water - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 562 : A person can claim regularisation of his services if he was employed between 1st April, 1984 and 4th August, 1986 and possesses the requisite qualifications for the post as prescribed on the date of his appointment. For workers appointed after 4th August, 1984, regularisation is possible if they possess the requisite qualifications and have rendered continuous service for at least one year, with artificial breaks ignored. In such cases, the services should be regulated in accordance with Act 19 of 1970, and the Kerala Public Service Commission will take steps to regularise their services as a separate block, with the age bar waived.Checking relevance for Ramakrishna Kamat VS State of Karnataka...

Checking relevance for Regional Manager, SBI VS Mahatma Mishra...

Checking relevance for Ashok Kumar Sonkar VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. ...

Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991 : A person can claim regularisation of his services only if he is in service on the date of enforcement of the Regularisation Rules. The mere fulfillment of eligibility conditions, such as possessing requisite qualifications and completing three years of service, is not sufficient if the person is not in service on that date. Regularisation requires both the fulfillment of conditions under the rules and the person being actively in service at the time of regularisation. There is no provision for deemed or automatic regularisation. The Government must pass a formal regularisation order for regularisation to occur. Therefore, the key condition for claiming regularisation is continuous service on the date the rules come into force.

• Conditions for Regularisation - Eligibility primarily depends on the employee being in service on the date of consideration, fulfilling specific criteria such as length of service, appointment process, and working against sanctioned posts. For instance, employees who worked continuously for a minimum period (often five or ten years) and were in service on the relevant cut-off date are eligible to be considered for regularisation ["Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Nazir Ahmad VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"].

• Service Continuity and Status - A key condition is that the individual must be in regular or continuous service at the time of consideration. Employees who have ceased to be in service due to termination, resignation, dismissal, or death before the enforcement of regularisation rules cannot claim regularisation ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"], ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["A. Sudhakarababu VS Managing Director, A. P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. , Regional Office, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh"]. The rules emphasize that only those actively holding sanctioned posts and working against them are eligible ["Pranjal Dutta, S/o. Sri R. K Dutta VS Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Md. Rashid VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].

• Appointment Process and Sanctioned Posts - The appointment must be through a recognized process (e.g., selection or proper recruitment procedure) and against a sanctioned post. Employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual, or daily-wage basis without a sanctioned post do not have a right to regularisation ["Pranjal Dutta, S/o. Sri R. K Dutta VS Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Nazir Ahmad VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].

• Length of Service and Qualification - Many policies specify minimum service duration (often five or ten years) and adequate qualifications as prerequisites. For example, employees who have completed the requisite period and meet the qualification criteria are considered eligible, provided other conditions are fulfilled ["Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"], ["Motukuri Yohanu vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].

• Discretion and Non-Right Nature of Regularisation - Courts have consistently held that regularisation is not a matter of right but a matter of policy and fulfillment of stipulated conditions. Even long service does not automatically guarantee regularisation if conditions are not met or if the employee's appointment was irregular or not against a sanctioned post ["Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Pranjal Dutta, S/o. Sri R. K Dutta VS Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Nanda Baburao Mattalle vs State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Department Of Urban Development - Karnataka"].

• Specific Policy Conditions and Due Consideration - Regularisation depends on adherence to specific government policies (e.g., G.O.212, G.O.Ms.No.112). Employees must fulfill all stipulated conditions, and the process involves consideration by competent authorities. Failure to consider eligible employees or non-fulfillment of conditions can be challenged in courts ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"], ["Ramesh Kumar Pathak @ Ramesh Kumar VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Yeswantha K. v. Managing Director Ksrtc Tvm and Others - Kerala"].

• Summary and Conclusion - Overall, a person can claim regularisation if they: (1) are in service on the date of consideration; (2) have worked for the minimum required period; (3) are appointed through a recognized process; (4) work against a sanctioned post; and (5) fulfill other specific policy conditions. Importantly, regularisation is not automatic; it depends on meeting all prescribed criteria and the discretion of competent authorities ["Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Pranjal Dutta, S/o. Sri R. K Dutta VS Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"].

References:- ["Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Pranjal Dutta, S/o. Sri R. K Dutta VS Union Of India - Gauhati"]- ["E.Venkateswarlu vs State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["Secretary to Government for Women & Child Welfare Department, Puducherry VS S. Anbu - Madras"]- ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 991"]- ["Vijay Laxmi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Nazir Ahmad VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["IRHANA JAN AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["Ramesh Kumar Pathak @ Ramesh Kumar VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Motukuri Yohanu vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["Yeswantha K. v. Managing Director Ksrtc Tvm and Others - Kerala"]- ["Nanda Baburao Mattalle vs State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Department Of Urban Development - Karnataka"]- ["ANIL KUMAR RASANI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"]