Continued casual employment for over a decade warrants regularization despite initial procedural irregularities.

The applicant, Shiba Sankar Swain, was engaged as a Group-D daily wage worker under the Income Tax Department in 2009.

He has served uninterruptedly for over 15 years and was subsequently granted 1/30th of the minimum pay scale.

On 16.01.2025, the respondents issued a letter directing the disengagement of persons hired after the DoP&T OM dated 04/10.12.2008.

The applicant challenged this letter, seeking regularization of his services from the date of initial engagement.

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the engagement did not follow formal recruitment rules, though they admitted the applicant’s continuous service since 2009.

1. Whether the letter dated 16.01.2025 directing the disengagement of the applicant is legally sustainable despite his long-term continuous service

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered for regularization based on his 15-year tenure and evolving judicial precedents on daily wage engagements

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of "equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations" as established in Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (2024), which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments.

It relied on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) regarding the "disconcerting reality" of exploiting temporary labels to evade long-term obligations.

Furthermore, it emphasized the doctrine from Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), asserting that the Uma Devi judgment cannot be used as a "shield" to justify indefinite "adhocism" or the denial of basic rights where work is perennial.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant has rendered over 15 years of uninterrupted service, which the respondents did not dispute.

The court noted that the nature of work appeared essential and recurring, yet the applicant remained in a "precarious" employment status.

Applying the Vinod Kumar and Shripal precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that while the initial appointment might have lacked procedural formalities, it was "irregular" rather than "illegal".

The court held that the State, as a "constitutional employer," cannot balance budgets on the backs of low-level workers performing recurring functions and must recognize the "substantive nature" of long-term duties.

The letter dated 16.01.2025 was deemed arbitrary because it ignored these human and legal consequences of prolonged insecurity.

It held that the applicant is entitled to be considered for regularization despite the technicalities of his initial engagement. The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s case for regularization within 180 days, adhering to the principles of fairness and the specific guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cited precedents.