Daily Wage Employee Lacking Prescribed Qualifications Cannot Claim Regularization or Retiral Benefits After Superannuation

The appellant was appointed as a daily-wage Tractor Driver prior to August 1987 and served for approximately 35 years until his retirement on June 30, 2021.

He sought regularization based on State Government circulars dated March 5, 2008, and August 16, 2012, which provided for the regularization of daily wagers appointed before December 31, 1988.

After previous litigation (WPS No. 6080/2018), the respondents issued an order on October 14, 2019, rejecting his claim on the grounds of lacking requisite educational qualifications.

The appellant challenged this rejection in WPS No. 8597/2023, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on January 7, 2026.

The appellant then preferred this Writ Appeal.

1. Whether a daily-wage employee can claim regularization with retrospective effect and consequential monetary/retiral benefits after superannuation based solely on long service and executive circulars.

2. Whether executive circulars for regularization can override statutory recruitment rules or bypass eligibility conditions like educational qualifications and the availability of sanctioned posts.

The court applied the principle that executive instructions/circulars are policy frameworks subject to conditions like sanctioned posts and suitability, and cannot override statutory recruitment rules.

It relied on the landmark precedent *State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1*, which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments and establishes the criteria for one-time regularization.

Furthermore, the court applied the rule from *Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (2024)*, which holds that retrospective regularization and consequential monetary benefits are impermissible unless expressly authorized by rules.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's reasoning that the circular dated March 5, 2008, did not create an automatic or indefeasible right to regularization.

The court analyzed Clause 'A' of the circular and determined that it did not exempt employees from educational qualifications or statutory recruitment rules.

The court found that the appellant’s case had been duly considered and rejected via a reasoned order in 2019 due to non-fulfillment of eligibility conditions.

It was observed that since the appellant had already superannuated, he could not be granted regularization or post-retiral benefits as he was never a regular appointee; such benefits are statutory entitlements that cannot be judicially conferred in the absence of a valid regular appointment.

The court concluded there was no palpable infirmity or perversity in the decision-making process.

The court affirmed that executive policies are subject to eligibility criteria and sanctioned posts, and since the appellant was never regularized during his service, he is not entitled to pension or gratuity.

No interference was warranted with the Single Judge's order.