Authorities must reconsider long-serving daily wagers’ regularization claims under applicable Supreme Court principles.

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Verma, was engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar/Care Taker under the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Durg.

He claimed to have continuously served for approximately 17 years since 2009 and to possess the requisite qualifications for the post.

He submitted a representation dated 10 June 2026 seeking regularization of his services, but the representation remained undecided.

He therefore filed the writ petition seeking directions for consideration of his regularization claim and disposal of his representation.

The State submitted that, if the representation was pending, it would be considered and decided within the time prescribed by the Court.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for regularization, based on approximately 17 years of service as a daily-wage employee, required consideration in light of the law laid down in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand?

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking regularization within a stipulated period?

The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018.

The Supreme Court held that regularization rules should receive a pragmatic interpretation and that employees who had completed ten years of service on the date of promulgation of the applicable regularization rules ought to receive the benefit of their past service and should be regularized, unless there existed a valid objection such as misconduct.

The High Court consequently directed consideration of the petitioner’s claim in accordance with that precedent and applicable law.

The Court noted that the petitioner had allegedly worked continuously as a daily-wage employee since 2009 and remained in service at the time of the petition.

In view of the length of service asserted by him and the principle in Narendra Kumar Tiwari, the Court held that his regularization claim required reconsideration rather than summary rejection.

Since the petitioner’s representation dated 10 June 2026 had not been decided, and the State did not oppose its consideration, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the competent authorities to examine the representation in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent and pass a reasoned order.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 10 June 2026 regarding regularization, in light of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order.