Direction to Consider Regularization of Daily Wagers Who Completed Ten Years of Service as One-Time Measure

The petitioners were appointed as Pump Operators on a daily-wage basis under Gram Panchayat Kotba on July 19, 1996.

Following the conversion of the Gram Panchayat into a Nagar Panchayat, the petitioners continued their service for over 30 years without regularization.

Seeking the benefit of State circulars and judicial precedents regarding the regularization of long-serving daily wagers, the petitioners submitted representations to the Chief Municipal Officer on March 27, 2025, which remained undecided.

The petitioners subsequently approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their cases for regularization as a one-time measure.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek regularization of their services after 30 years of continuous daily-wage employment in light of the "one-time measure" principle established by the judiciary.

2. Whether the Court should direct the state authorities to decide on the pending representations for regularization within a fixed timeframe.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which mandated a "one-time measure" for regularizing irregularly appointed employees who have worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts.

State Government’s circular dated March 5, 2008, which outlined the procedure for regularizing Class III and IV employees.

Recent expansive interpretations from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), which criticize the "misuse of temporary labels" for perennial work and establish the State's duty as a "model employer" to avoid exploitative "ad-hocism".

The Court observed that the petitioners have rendered approximately 30 years of continuous service, well exceeding the 10-year threshold established in Umadevi.

The Court emphasized that temporary contracts cannot be used as a shield to evade long-term obligations when the nature of work is essential and perennial.

Applying the principles from Jaggo and Dharam Singh, the Judge noted that the State, acting as a constitutional employer, must organize its workforce on a sanctioned footing rather than maintaining a state of perpetual insecurity.

Since the petitioners had not yet submitted comprehensive representations covering all legal grounds to the higher-level Respondents (1 to 4), the Court found it procedurally appropriate to allow the petitioners to move the authorities directly with a detailed claim based on the cited Supreme Court precedents.

The Court directed the Respondents to consider and take a speaking decision on said representation in accordance with law and the discussed Supreme Court mandates... preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the representation.