Authorities must decide daily-wage employees’ fresh regularization representations in accordance with law.

The petitioners, working as Firemen, stated that they were initially engaged as daily-wage employees under the Rajnandgaon Municipal Corporation.

Following a State Government circular dated 14 July 2017 transferring the Fire Department and its human resources to the Home Guard, Fire and Emergency Services Department, they continued as Municipal Corporation employees while being treated as on deputation.

During the hearing, counsel for the State and the Municipal Corporation agreed that a fresh representation would be considered in accordance with law.

Whether the petitioners’ claim for regularization should be considered by the concerned authorities on a fresh representation.

Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ entitlement to regularization in the writ petition, or dispose of the matter by directing consideration of their representation.

The Court referred to Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, concerning claims for regularization by temporary or daily-wage employees who have completed ten years of service, and to Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which emphasized fair and stable employment and cautioned against prolonged temporary engagement in work integral to an organization.

The Court did not declare that the petitioners were entitled to regularization; their claim remained subject to consideration in accordance with law.

The petitioners asserted long and continuous daily-wage service and relied on the transfer of the Fire Department’s human resources to explain their present employment arrangement.

Referring to the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court directed that their regularization claim be considered, but did not adjudicate whether the petitioners met the legal requirements for regularization. The parties’ agreement that a fresh representation would be considered supported disposal of the petition on that limited basis.

Respondents 3 and 5 were directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four months of its receipt. No order granting regularization or absorption was made.