Authorities must consider parity with regularised employees when deciding regularisation claims.

The petitioner was engaged on daily wages in 1997, later terminated, and reinstated by the Labour Court on 6 September 2007.

His successive requests for regularisation were rejected, including on the ground that he had not completed ten years of service.

He asserted that his service record showed completion of the required period and that two similarly situated employees had been regularised.

After filing a representation on 27 August 2026, he sought a direction for its consideration and for regularisation with consequential benefits.

The State submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to consider his representation seeking regularisation, including in light of the regularisation of allegedly similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the Court should itself direct regularisation and consequential benefits, or leave the petitioner’s entitlement to be determined by the competent authority.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to regularisation or set out a statutory test for eligibility.

It directed the competent authority to decide the pending representation “in accordance with law” and to take account of the regularisation of similarly situated persons.

The petitioner relied on Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, but the Court did not discuss or apply that precedent in its reasoning.

Given the pending representation and the State’s undertaking that it would be considered, the Court left the merits of regularisation to the competent authority rather than deciding eligibility itself.

It required the authority to consider the petitioner’s assertion that comparable employees had been regularised and, if rejecting the claim, to provide reasons.

If the petitioner were found entitled, the authority was to pass an appropriate order with consequential benefits.

The competent authority was directed to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 27 August 2026 in accordance with law, taking into account the regularisation orders concerning the similarly situated employees.

Within three months of communication of the Court’s order, the authority must either grant appropriate regularisation-related relief, including consequential benefits if the petitioner is found entitled, or pass a reasoned order rejecting the claim.