### Awazdars intermittently engaged as substitutes are not daily wagers entitled to regularization under 2001 Rules.

The five petitioners approached the Court in 2009, claiming they had worked as 'Awazdar' (substitute) daily wagers for the Kanpur Nagar Nigam since 1990, performing the duties of a Switchman

They alleged they worked 30 days a month but were paid for only 10, and that the department ignored their seniority to regularize junior employees

Previous directions from the High Court in 2003 and 2006 led to a rejection order by the respondents on February 2, 2009

The respondents contended that the petitioners were merely substitutes engaged for a maximum of 10 days a month to fill gaps caused by the absence of regular staff, had never completed 240 days of work in a year, and were not appointed against substantive posts

The petitioners had not worked since 2006, and no interim order was granted during the 17-year pendency of the writ

1. Whether the petitioners were "daily wagers" eligible for regularization under the U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group ‘D’ Post) Rules, 2001

2. Whether the "seniority list" of Awazdars cited by the petitioners conferred a legal right to regularization over private respondents

3. Whether the private respondents were regularized from the same pool or through a fresh recruitment process

U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group ‘D’ Post) Rules, 2001, which require a claimant to be directly appointed on daily wages before June 29, 1991, and to be continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Rules

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, regarding the non-maintainability of claims for regularization of back-door or temporary arrangements

Distinguished the precedent of Mohd. Sagir v. Nagar Nigam Kanpur (2026), noting that findings of fact by a Labour Court through evidence cannot be equated with summary writ jurisdiction

The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide material evidence to substantiate their claim of working 30 days a month

Upon examining the records, the Court noted that the "seniority list" the petitioners relied upon was not a statutory list for regularization but a chronological roster used to call substitutes in the absence of regular Switchmen

Crucially, the evidence showed that the private respondents (alleged juniors) were not regularized from an Awazdar list but were appointed through a fresh recruitment process against vacant substantive posts

Since the petitioners were only 'Awazdars' (substitutes) and not directly appointed daily wagers on Group 'D' posts, they did not fall within the ambit of the 2001 Rules

Furthermore, their long absence from work (since 2006) was deemed a major adverse factor

The impugned order dated February 2, 2009, was found to be legally sustainable. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition