Continuous 24-year service as part-time employee creates legal and moral obligation for regularization despite technical deficiencies.

The respondent was appointed as a Hamal (part-time loader/porter) against a vacant sanctioned post in 1992

Under a Government Circular dated 26.12.1980, part-time employees were entitled to absorption after three years of service; however, in 1995, the State kept this circular in abeyance, preventing the respondent’s regularization

Over the next decade, the respondent’s working hours fluctuated between three, four, and six hours by various administrative orders

In 2007, a new Government Resolution (G.R. dated 01.05.2007) allowed for one-time regularization provided the employee had 10 years of service and worked at least 6 hours daily as of 10.02.2006

The State rejected the respondent’s claim, citing technical non-compliance with the 6-hour daily work requirement

The learned Single Judge quashed this rejection and ordered regularization, leading to this appeal by the State

1. Whether the State is legally and morally obligated to regularize the services of a part-time employee who has completed 24 years of continuous service despite technical shortfalls in daily working hours specified in Government Resolutions

2. Whether the suspension of a beneficial circular (G.R. dated 26.12.1980) can indefinitely deprive an employee of the right to be considered for regularization when they met the initial criteria during their tenure

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of legitimate expectation and the State's obligations as a model employer.

The Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 regarding the absorption of part-time employees after three years

Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007, which established criteria for one-time regularization after 10 years of service

the principle that the State has both a legal and moral obligation to regularize long-standing employees to prevent the extraction of labor for nearly a quarter of a century without permanent status

The court observed that the respondent had served for 24 years—nearly a quarter of a century—as a Hamal

It noted that the respondent initially had a right to regularization under the 1980 Circular upon completing three years in 1995, but this was frustrated by the State's decision to keep the circular in abeyance

The Court rejected the State's technical arguments regarding the failure to meet the 6-hour daily work requirement under the 2007 G.R., characterizing them as "technical in nature"

The Bench reasoned that extracting work for over two decades creates an inescapable moral and legal duty for the State to provide security of tenure

The Court emphasized that an employee spends their entire life serving the State with the "fond hope" of eventual regularization, and such long-standing service overrides minor administrative or technical deficiencies in the application of subsequent policy resolutions

The Court held that 24 years of continuous service per se entitles an employee to regularization, and the State cannot rely on technicalities to defeat such a claim

The Court directed the State to compute all consequential benefits the respondent is entitled to and make payment within six weeks