Absence of Statutory Rules Precludes Retrospective Regularization of Services from the Date of Initial Daily-Wage Engagement

The Petitioner was engaged by the Respondents as a daily wage worker on 11.08.1989 without a regular recruitment process.

In 2011, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization, which resulted in a direction to the Respondents to consider his case.

During subsequent litigation, the Respondents issued an order dated 15.04.2013 regularizing the Petitioner’s services as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with prospective effect.

The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 3732/2014 before the CAT seeking regularization from the date of his initial engagement (11.08.1989), which was dismissed on 21.01.2020.

The Petitioner, having retired in 2024, challenged the CAT's dismissal via this Writ Petition.

Whether a person engaged on a daily wage basis, whose services were subsequently regularized, is entitled to claim regularization with retrospective effect from the date of initial engagement in the absence of a statutory rule or policy.

The Court established that length of service does not create a vested right to retrospective regularization if the initial appointment was not made through a regular recruitment process.

It applied the principle that regularization is not a fundamental mode of recruitment.

The Court relied on *Registrar General of India v. Thippa Setty*, which held that retrospective regularization of ad hoc or temporary services should not be granted if it disturbs the settled seniority of regularly appointed employees.

Furthermore, cases of daily wage engagement were distinguished from compassionate appointments, as the latter are made against substantive vacancies.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner failed to produce any statutory rule, executive instruction, or policy that permitted regularization to relate back to the date of initial daily wage engagement.

It noted that the Petitioner was only subjected to a formal selection process just prior to his 2013 regularization, meaning he did not hold the requisite status during the 1989-2013 period.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on *Jaggo v. Union of India* and *Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.*, clarifies that while long service is a factor for granting regularization, it does not mandate retrospective effect if it bypasses recruitment rules.

Critically, the Court observed that granting the prayer would unfairly upend the seniority of employees who were regularly recruited between 1989 and 2013, violating the principles of cadre stability.

The Court found no illegality in the CAT’s order and held that the Petitioner had no enforceable legal right to seek seniority or notional pay fixation from 1989.

The Writ Petition was dismissed.