Continuous Tenure on Collector Rates Entitles Daily Wagers to Regularization Consideration Under Uma Devi Principles

The petitioner, who has worked uninterruptedly for a government department since 1997, sought regularization and a regular pay scale.

He previously filed a writ petition in 2016, where the court directed the respondents to consider his representation.

The respondents subsequently rejected his claim on March 24, 2016, asserting that as a part-time employee, he was ineligible for regularization under existing rules.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, providing evidence of continuous service at Collector rates and noting that similarly situated individuals had been regularized.

1. Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization was valid given his long-term, continuous service and the treatment of similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the principles regarding the regularization of long-serving temporary or irregular employees established by the Supreme Court apply to the petitioner's circumstances.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to issue writs.

Precedent established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggu v. Union of India (2024) and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, which interpret the landmark Uma Devi judgment.

Doctrine that while "backdoor entries" are prohibited, employees in "irregular" rather than "illegal" appointments who have served for over ten years in sanctioned roles should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure to prevent the "weaponizing" of legal technicalities against long-term workers.

The court found that the petitioner’s status as a "part-time" worker was contradicted by the administrative record, which showed he had been re-engaged at Collector rates and worked continuously for decades.

The court observed that the department had previously regularized others in the same position, suggesting a discriminatory application of rules.

By applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jaggu, the court determined that government departments must act as model employers; it reasoned that denying regularization solely on procedural labels (like "part-time") after decades of indispensable service contradicts international labor standards and the spirit of Indian constitutional law.

The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within 15 days, which the respondents must decide upon within two months from the date of receipt, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.