Authorities must decide long-serving daily-wage employees’ regularization representations in accordance with law within four months.

The petitioner claimed that he had been appointed as a daily-wage employee under the Public Works Department and had continued in service for more than 18 years without regularisation.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and Jaggo v. Union of India, he sought directions for consideration of his regularisation claim, including consideration of seniority and subsequent government circulars.

The petitioner requested permission to submit a comprehensive representation and a direction to the competent authority to decide it within a specified period.

The State raised no objection to this limited relief.

1. Whether the petitioner, who claimed continuous engagement as a daily-wage employee for more than 18 years, was entitled to have his claim for regularisation considered in light of applicable law and Supreme Court precedent.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s comprehensive representation regarding regularisation, seniority, and subsequent circulars within a prescribed time.

The Court relied on Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, concerning the consideration of regularisation claims by temporary or daily-wage employees who had completed ten years of service.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein the Supreme Court observed that government departments should lead by example in providing fair and stable employment and that prolonged engagement of workers on a temporary basis, particularly where their work is integral to the organisation, may be inconsistent with fair labour standards and expose the employer to legal challenges.

The governing principle applied was that the petitioner’s claim for regularisation had to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, without the High Court itself directing automatic regularisation.

The Court noted the petitioner’s assertion of continuous daily-wage employment and service exceeding 18 years, and considered the relevance of the Supreme Court’s observations in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Jaggo to prolonged temporary employment.

Since the State did not oppose the limited prayer for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to regularisation.

Instead, it provided a procedural remedy by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation and requiring the competent authority to examine it in accordance with law.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh comprehensive representation before the concerned authority concerning his regularisation claim.

The authority was directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four months from its receipt.