Authorities must regularize daily-wage employees from the same date as similarly situated employees, subject to record verification.

The four petitioners were working as daily-wage peons in various hostels and ashrams under the Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department, District Gariyaband.

They claimed to have completed more than sixteen years of service and to possess the requisite qualifications for their posts.

Relying on the departmental circular dated 5 March 2008 and regularization orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 28 February 2022 and 18 October 2024 in favour of similarly situated employees, the petitioners sought regularization from the dates on which those employees had been regularized.

They submitted representations to the authorities, but no relief was granted, leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioners alleged arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and relied on Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh .

The State opposed the petition.

Whether the petitioners, as long-serving daily-wage employees, were entitled to consideration for regularization under the circular dated 5 March 2008 and on parity with similarly situated employees regularized in 2022 and 2024.

Whether the respondent authorities were required to examine the petitioners’ cases against the cases of similarly situated daily-wage employees and grant regularization from the same date, subject to similarity and absence of any valid disqualification.

The Court applied the principle that regularization provisions must receive a pragmatic interpretation and that employees who had completed ten years of service on the relevant date should ordinarily receive the benefit of regularization, unless a valid objection—such as misconduct—existed.

This principle was drawn from Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand , Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018, decided on 1 August 2018.

The Court also considered the departmental circular dated 5 March 2008 and the need to maintain parity with similarly situated employees who had been regularized under orders dated 28 February 2022 and 18 October 2024.

The petitioners’ reliance on Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh , WPS No. 4293 of 2012, decided on 10 February 2023, was noted.

The Court accepted that the petitioners had claimed long and continuous daily-wage service exceeding sixteen years, but it did not direct their automatic regularization.

Instead, applying the principle in Narendra Kumar Tiwari , it held that their entitlement had to be assessed by comparison with employees whose services had already been regularized.

The authorities were therefore required to inspect the relevant records and determine whether the petitioners were similarly situated in terms of service, eligibility, and other applicable conditions.

If no valid objection to regularization existed and the petitioners were found comparable to the employees regularized in 2022 and 2024, parity required that they be regularized from the corresponding dates.

The respondent authorities were directed to examine the records of the employees whose services had been regularized in 2022 and 2024 and to determine whether the petitioners were similarly situated.

If so, the petitioners were to be regularized from the same respective dates.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within ninety days from receipt of a copy of the order.