Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Regularisation is a matter of policy and not an automatic consequence of service length. Regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and no vested right accrues merely due to long service ["Kusum Devi vs State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Kusum Devi vs State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]- ["Kusum Devi vs State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]- ["DEIHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS J. K. THAKUR - Delhi"]- ["Domnic Furtado (ST) vs State of Goa, Through its Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa - Bombay"]- ["RAJESH KUMAR VS STATE OF U P - Allahabad"]- Ilmo Devi
In the realm of Indian labor law, one common question arises frequently among workers and employers alike: Can a daily wager employee claim regularization, irrespective of the period he has served? This issue touches the lives of countless temporary workers in government and public sector jobs, who often hope that years of continuous service will pave the way to permanent status. However, Indian courts have consistently ruled that such claims are not straightforward. Regularization is not an automatic entitlement but hinges on specific legal conditions. This post delves into the legal landscape, drawing from key judgments and principles to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general information based on judicial precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Generally, daily wage workers do not have an automatic right to regularization or permanent employment. This entitlement depends heavily on statutory rules, government policies, and the availability of sanctioned posts. As courts have emphasized, Regularization cannot be granted de hors statutory rules, schemes, or regulations Mehendi Qasim Sheikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339.
Long service alone does not suffice. The judiciary has clarified that regularization is a policy decision and cannot be ordered merely based on length of service or continuous employment Devanand, Shri Matadeen Singh VS State of U. P. through Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Government of - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1347. Without compliance with prescribed procedures, such claims are typically rejected.
These principles stem from landmark rulings, underscoring that courts prioritize rule-based processes over sympathy for long service.
Indian courts have repeatedly held that regularization must align with statutory rules or schemes. In one key judgment, the court stated: Regularization cannot be granted de hors the rules and without a scheme, rules, or regulations framed by the authority Mehendi Qasim Sheikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339. Similarly, authorities must consider government policies, but these are not legally binding unless codified Kailash Bihari Thakur VS Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 804.
For instance, state-specific resolutions provide guidelines for long-serving workers, yet courts clarify they remain administrative tools, not rights MANNA LAL VS BHURALAL - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 2070Prem Ram VS Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam, Dehradun - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 432.
A frequent argument is that prolonged service—sometimes spanning decades—warrants permanency. However, courts reject this outright. Engagement on daily wages ends upon discontinuation, and temporary workers cannot claim permanency solely on tenure expiry Devanand, Shri Matadeen Singh VS State of U. P. through Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Government of - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1347. While long service may aid claims for benefits like pension or gratuity Netram Sahu VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2018 3 Supreme 41, it does not extend to regularization.
Supporting this, a ruling notes: Completion of seven years of continuous period of daily wage service alone thus would not entitle a daily wager for regularisation unless such daily wager fulfills other eligibility conditions State of JK VS Mushtaq Ahmad Naik - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 329. Another affirms: Illegally appointed daily wager cannot claim regularisation only because he has worked for number of years Vandanaben Naginbhai Patel VS Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 432.
Without sanctioned vacancies, regularization is impossible. Appointments on unsanctioned posts or bypassing procedures are deemed illegal and ineligible for regularization C. S. Azad Krishi Evem Prodyogiki Vishwa VS United Trades Congress - 2007 8 Supreme 368Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed VS State of Gujarat - 2009 4 Supreme 466. This ensures fiscal discipline and adherence to recruitment norms.
While the general rule holds firm, certain scenarios offer limited relief, often tied to specific rules or equities:
Compassionate Appointments: Dependents of deceased daily-wagers may claim if regularization was underway. In one case, a worker with 39 years' service had an ongoing process; the court directed consideration for her dependent, noting: The claim of regularization of the deceased-employee does not remain an option to be ignored Pawan Kumar VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1089. However, this hinges on rules like Uttar Pradesh's 1974 and 2016 schemes.
Pension and Gratuity Benefits: Prior daily wage service often counts toward qualifying periods post-regularization. Courts have ruled: Service rendered as a daily wage worker must be counted for pension and gratuity benefits upon regularization Suresh Chandra Kandwal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 Supreme(UK) 267. Similarly, exclusions violate Article 14's equality principle Adarsh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2095M. Brindavanam VS Secretary To Government Transport Department - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 3150.
Work-Charge or Policy-Driven Cases: Under specific G.O.s, like G.O.Ms.No.212, regularization is prospective and criteria-bound, not retrospective Ch. Surya Prakasha Rao VS Govt. of A. P. - 2024 Supreme(AP) 240. Long service (e.g., 11 years) may invite equitable regularization if procedures allow SH. SANDEEP KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7635, but delay/laches can bar claims Chuni Lal S/o. Sh. Moti Ram VS State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Its Principal Secretary (I & PH) To The Government of Himachal Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(HP) 32.
Limitations: Even here, permanency requires legislative mandate, not mere policy. Contractual or casual hires cannot claim regularization de hors Articles 14 and 16 GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SURENDRA KUMAR - 2013 Supreme(All) 2523. Retirement age for daily-wagers differs from regulars, lacking post-holding status Badri VS State of M. P. - 2011 Supreme(MP) 698. Gratuity for daily wage periods may apply under specific acts SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED VS KANJIBHAI MAGANBHAI SOLANKI - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1506.
These exceptions highlight that while sympathy plays a role, statutory compliance remains paramount.
In summary, daily wage employees cannot claim regularization irrespective of service period without statutory backing, schemes, and sanctioned posts. Courts, as in Devanand, Shri Matadeen Singh VS State of U. P. through Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Government of - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1347 and Mehendi Qasim Sheikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339, prioritize legal frameworks over longevity. Exceptions for pensions, gratuity, or compassionate roles exist but are narrowly construed.
Workers should pursue benefits through proper channels, while employers adhere to rules for sustainability. Stay informed on evolving policies—regularization remains a policy privilege, not a vested right.
References (select judgments):1. Devanand, Shri Matadeen Singh VS State of U. P. through Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Government of - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1347 - No legal right for daily wagers.2. Mehendi Qasim Sheikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1339 - De hors rules invalid.3. Kailash Bihari Thakur VS Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 804 - Policy considerations.4. Prem Ram VS Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam, Dehradun - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 432 - Long service insufficient.5. Pawan Kumar VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1089 - Compassionate exception.6. Suresh Chandra Kandwal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 Supreme(UK) 267 - Pension counting.
For updates, follow labor law developments in your state.
#DailyWageRights, #LaborLawIndia, #RegularizationRules
could not acquire status of a regular employee and petitioners were given compassionate appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have served for the last more than ten years. ... According to petitioners, they have served for sufficiently long period of time; therefore, they are entitled to be given regular appointment, but their claim is not being considered. 3. ... It is further their case that after rendering long, continuous and satis....
According to petitioners, they have served for sufficiently long period of time; therefore, they are entitled to be given regular appointment, but their claim is not being considered. 3. ... death, they could not acquire status of a regular employee and petitioners were given compassionate appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have served for the last more than ten years. 5. ... Hence, they are not#....
She served as a daily-wager continuously since the month of November, 1984 and pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. ... In this situation, the claim of regularization of the deceased-employee does not remain an option to be ignored by the State Government. ... Here, the petitioner's mother was retained as a daily-wager for as long a period as 39 years. No doubt, her case ought to have been considered in the first in....
We find that once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment ... Apart from this no benefit of service for the period of they engaged on daily wager has been given in respect of granting of gratuity or EPF benef....
or work charge employee counted towards qualifying period for pension and those who have been regularized after 2005, in their respect that much period rendered as daily wager/casual/ad-hoc capacity as it makes them qualify for pension, should be taken into account. ... In the present case the appropriate pleadings are also not there, so as to declare the employment of the petitioners as daily wager for considerably long period as '....
wages before 25/11/1993 to claim regularisation irrespective of the date of completion of five years' service. ... ' service after 25/11/1993 cannot claim regularisation. ... Though the Act provides that no person who is daily-wage employee and no person who is appointed on temporary basis shall have any right to claim for regularisation of service on any ground, it has been the endeavour of the Government to regularise as many as N....
It is urged that the petitioner has admittedly served the respondent as a daily wager for a continuous period of eleven years since his initial appointment on 21.03.2008. ... The issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, having served as a daily wager for over eleven years since 21.03.2008, is entitled to regularisation of his service. ... Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner is el....
a daily-waged employee is not entitled.” ... It is a status to be conferred upon daily-wager on completion of requisite period of service as daily-wager, in terms of Policy, in absence of regular vacancy, so as to safe guard the interest of daily-wager regarding his right to be regularized on completion of specific years on daily wages with requisite ... is to be conferred upon daily#HL_....
This is so for the simple reason that a daily wager cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right or course because of having, remained in engagement for few years unless any Rules/circular/policy of the employer provide for such deeming regularisation on completion of a specific period of engagement ... ... ( 27 ) WE accordingly hold that a Daily wager had no automatic right of regularisation unless he was so regularised by an ....
Payment of Gratuity Act or not and/or whether the concerned employee is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period during which he worked as a daily wager or not. ... That the concerned employees were not paid the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the period, they worked as a daily wager. ... They were also not paid the gratuity under the Gujarat Civil....
Completion of seven years of continuous period of daily wage service alone thus would not entitle a daily wager for regularisation unless such daily wager fulfills other eligibility conditions. The writ petitioners/respondents in this regard have submitted an affidavit undertaking that they shall not claim regularization from the back date which affidavits however, are being contended to have been submitted under compelling circumstances by the writ petitioners/respondents. All the conditions are inter-dependent and have to be fulfilled by a daily wager whose case is to be ....
By placing reliance on the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, Mr. Chudgar has submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation only on the basis of her length of service. He has submitted an illegally appointed daily wager cannot claim regularisation only because he has worked for number of years. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Upendra Singh Vs State of Bihar and others, 2018 (3) SCC 680.
It may be clarified that regularisation of service of daily wager, casual employee and the contractual employee can only be made by rule having a legislative mandate and not by any policy. Perusal of the letter dated 5th March, 2008, issued by the Under Secretary, shows that the Government has granted approval to the policy. No details of any Government Order has been given nor there is any reference of any legislative sanction.
Petitioner had served respondents as a daily wager and thereafter as a regular employee for the period of more than 12 years. In view of pleadings on record, factual position is not in dispute. If service rendered by the petitioner as daily wager is counted towards qualifying service, he will become eligible to get pension.
It is clear from the judgment of the Constitution Bench that to get a benefit of certain age of retirement the employee has to be appointed to a permanent post or to a temporary post. When the daily wager employee has not been appointed against the post then certainly he has no right to hold the post for a specific period in accordance with the rules because the daily wager employee has no status.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
