Daily wager service cannot be counted for higher pay scale or promotional benefits upon regular appointment.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager by the respondent-State on April 1, 1996.

In 1999, he was considered for the post of Bit Guard but was not selected after failing the physical and walking tests.

A colleague, Mr. Gadh, was appointed on November 6, 2000.

The petitioner challenged his non-selection via SCA No. 2612/2001; the Court directed the respondents to reconsider his case in 2007.

Consequently, the respondent appointed the petitioner as a Bit Guard on October 10, 2007, on sympathetic grounds, which the petitioner accepted without protest.

In 2009, the petitioner applied to have his appointment backdated to November 6, 2000, to claim higher pay scale benefits based on his daily wage service.

The respondent rejected this request on January 20, 2010.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition in 2013.

1. Whether the service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager prior to his regular appointment can be counted for the purpose of granting higher pay scale and promotion benefits.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek retrospective appointment as a Bit Guard with effect from November 6, 2000.

The court relied on the principle that "regular service" encompasses only that service rendered after a regular appointment and generally excludes service as an ad-hoc, temporary, or work-charged employee.

It applied the precedent *Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram* (2009) 3 SCC 661, which holds that work-charged or daily wage service cannot be clubbed with regular service for financial benefits unless a specific statute or scheme provides for such counting.

The court also distinguished the precedent *Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2019) 10 SCC 516, noting it was contingent on specific state retirement rules not present in this case.

The court reasoned that since daily wagers are not part of a regular establishment and their recruitment mode differs from sanctioned posts, their service cannot be treated at par with regular employees.

The petitioner failed to produce any government resolution or rule allowing the clubbing of daily wage service with regular service for seniority or pay scales.

Regarding the retrospective appointment, the court noted that the petitioner originally failed the mandatory tests in 2000 and his eventual appointment in 2007 was on "sympathetic grounds".

Furthermore, the petitioner accepted the 2007 appointment without any demurrer or reservation of rights and withdrew his previous litigation (SCA No. 2612/2001) without seeking liberty to challenge the effective date.

The court also found the petition barred by laches, as it was filed three years after the rejection order and years after the 2007 appointment.

The court further held that the petitioner, having failed the 2000 selection process and having accepted the 2007 appointment without protest, cannot claim a retrospective date of appointment.

Rule discharged.