Acquittal after removal does not entitle a daily wager to regularization absent qualifying service.

The petitioner was retrenched in 1988 and was subsequently appointed as a muster-roll worker against a sanctioned post of Tube-Well Operator (Khalasi) by Letter No. 565 dated 26 May 1998.

Following his implication in Muffasil (Nawada) P.S. Case No. 34 of 1992, his services were discontinued by Memo No. 1074 dated 27 September 1994 while criminal proceedings were pending against him.

Although the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the High Court acquitted him in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 279 of 1996 by order dated 12 August 2022.

The petitioner relied on Memo No. 489 dated 10 May 2005, under which certain daily-wage workers, including persons removed after August 1993, were considered for regularization.

He claimed parity with other daily-wage employees whose services were recommended for regularization in 2008.

His representation seeking re-appointment and regularization was rejected by Letter No. 491 dated 15 May 2023.

The State contended that the petitioner was not in service when the regularization decision was taken and had not completed ten years of service as a daily-wage worker against a sanctioned vacant post.

Whether the petitioner, having been removed from service in 1994 and subsequently acquitted in the criminal case, was entitled to re-appointment or restoration of his earlier status as a daily-wage worker.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization on the basis of Memo No. 489 dated 10 May 2005 and the regularization of allegedly similarly situated employees.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility requirement of ten years’ service on a sanctioned vacant post, consistently with Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].

The Court applied the principles governing regularization of temporary and daily-wage employees stated by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, under which regularization cannot ordinarily be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to the applicable eligibility conditions, including the nature and duration of service and appointment against a sanctioned post.

The Court also considered the State’s regularization policy reflected in Memo No. 489 dated 10 May 2005 and the distinction between employees who continued in service and those whose services had already been terminated.

The petitioner’s acquittal from the criminal case removed the criminal conviction but did not, by itself, establish an automatic right to re-appointment or regularization.

The Court held that the petitioner’s case was materially different from that of the employees who remained in service as daily-wage workers and were later considered for regularization under the 2005 policy.

Since the petitioner had been removed in 1994, he was not in service when the regularization decision was implemented and therefore could not claim parity with those employees.

The Court further accepted the State’s submission that the petitioner had not completed ten years of service as a daily-wage worker against a sanctioned vacant post, a condition relevant under the principles laid down in Uma Devi.

His subsequent acquittal did not retrospectively convert the period after removal into qualifying service or confer an entitlement to regularization.

Accordingly, the rejection of his claim was not found to warrant interference.

It held that he was not entitled either to re-appointment with consequential benefits or to regularization on the basis of Memo No. 489 dated 10 May 2005, because he had been removed before the regularization process and had not completed the requisite period of service on a sanctioned post.

The writ petition challenging Letter No. 491 dated 15 May 2023 was dismissed.