Eligible daily-wage employees must be regularized from completing ten years, with service counted for pension.

The petitioners entered the respondents’ service as daily wagers on 1 January 1985 and 6 July 1984, respectively.

They sought regularisation through representations, asserting that they had completed over 32 years of continuous service; by the time of the petition, both had retired on reaching superannuation, and the representations remained undecided.

They sought retrospective regularisation from completion of ten years’ service, financial and retirement benefits, and pension.

Relying on a coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 100556 of 2024, the Court treated the dispute as identical and allowed the petition.

Whether the petitioners, who had served as daily wagers for more than ten years, were entitled to regularisation from the dates they completed ten years of service.

Whether their service should count towards pay fixation, pension and other terminal benefits, and whether arrears of salary were payable.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the Supreme Court recognised a one-time measure for considering irregularly appointed employees who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, without court or tribunal protection, and who possessed the prescribed qualifications.

State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari explained the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments and identified the relevant conditions for regularisation.

The Court also relied on subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning long-serving employees, including Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Sheo Narain Nagar, Prem Singh and Jaggo, and on the principle that similarly situated employees should not be treated arbitrarily or subjected to “pick and choose” treatment.

The Court applied these principles through its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered that the petitioners’ claims fell within the principles applied by the coordinate Bench concerning long-serving daily-wage employees and the Umadevi framework.

It concluded that the circumstances warranted a direct mandamus rather than a direction merely to reconsider their cases, reasoning that further consideration could generate another round of litigation.

The Court therefore adopted the coordinate Bench’s decision and granted the same relief, including counting the petitioners’ service for pension and terminal benefits.

The respondents were directed to regularise the petitioners’ services from the respective dates on which they completed ten years of service.

The petitioners were entitled to pay fixation at par with permanent employees from those dates, but not arrears of salary; their service was to count for pension and other incidental terminal benefits.

Compliance was directed within six weeks.