Daily Wage Employees Entitled to Consideration for Regularization Based on Extended Service and Supreme Court Precedents

The four petitioners were employed as daily wage Cleaners/Sanitation workers (Class IV posts) under the Municipal Corporation, Durg.

Despite continuous service on these posts, they were not regularized or absorbed into permanent status.

Some petitioners had received previous orders rejecting their claims for regularization.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for permanent status, absorption, and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek a direction for regularization or absorption in their respective posts based on their continuous service as daily wagers.

2. Whether the respondent authorities must consider and decide the petitioners' representation for regularization in light of established Supreme Court precedents.

Legal principles governing the regularization of temporary or daily wage employees who have completed substantial years of service.

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Others v. State of Jharkhand Others [2018 (2) SCC (LS) 472], which addressed the claim of regularization for employees completing 10 years of service.

Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC Online SC 3826], which emphasizes that government departments should provide fair and stable employment and that extended temporary engagement for integral roles contravenes international labour standards and undermines morale.

The Court analyzed the petitioners' claim of continuous engagement as daily wage employees in the context of the cited Supreme Court mandates.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that since the petitioners are seeking specific administrative action (regularization), the appropriate legal course is to allow them to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authorities first.

By invoking the principles in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Jaggo, the Court suggested that the state has a duty to act as a model employer and evaluate such claims within a framework of fairness and statutory rules.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits itself but created a time-bound procedural obligation for the State to exercise its administrative discretion.

The Court directed the respondents to consider and take a decision on said representation in accordance with the law and extant rules, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt.

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim for regularization.