Government must regularize long-serving temporary employees under Jaggo v. Union of India principles.

The applicant, Surjeet Kumar, was initially engaged as a Daily Wage Safai Karmachari by the respondents on April 19, 1995, and subsequently posted at Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis Hospital (RBTB Hospital) against a vacant post on August 31, 1995

The respondents initiated an exercise to regularize daily wage workers who joined between 1995 and 2006, and the regularization process for the applicant commenced on October 1, 2007

However, the respondents allegedly found that the applicant had worked less than 240 days in the years 1998-99 and 2004-05, leading to the denial of regularization

The applicant submitted medical certificates for her absence, which were not accepted

The case for regularization was revisited on July 12, 2011, for left-out daily wagers up to March 31, 2003, but the applicant was again denied regularization for the same reasons

In contrast, 84 other daily wagers from the 1999-2006 period were regularized

The applicant's union submitted representations in 2017 for regularization

Following no action, the applicant filed OA No. 2728/2017, leading to a Tribunal order on August 17, 2017, directing the applicant to make a fresh representation and the respondents to pass a speaking order

The respondents then issued the impugned order dated February 5, 2018, rejecting the applicant's claim, prompting the current OA

The applicant claims the authenticity of Annexure-A2, which states she worked more than 240 days in the disputed years

Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization at par with other daily wage employees, considering her continuous service and the employer's alleged inconsistencies in applying regularization criteria

Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant's regularization based on insufficient working days (less than 240 days) in specific years was justified, particularly in light of the applicant's claim of having worked more than the stipulated days, and the lack of specific denial from the respondents regarding Annexure-A2

Whether the principles of fairness and being a model employer, as laid down by the Apex Court, apply to the regularization of the applicant despite alleged minor deficiencies in her working days

The court primarily applied the principle that the State, as a model employer, should not exploit its employees and should act fairly, particularly regarding regularization of temporary or ad hoc workers who have served for long periods against regular posts

This principle stems from the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, directive principles of equal pay for equal work, and the need to prevent long-term temporary status

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in State of Haryana & Anr Vs Piara Singh & Ors., (1992) 4 SCD 118, which emphasized that where temporary appointments continue for long, it presumes a need for a regular post and directs regularization

Further, reliance was placed on Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. vs Kerala Water Authority & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 28, noting that services should be regularized if incumbents possess requisite qualifications and have continuously served

Crucially, the Tribunal cited the recent Supreme Court judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which reiterated that government institutions should lead by example in providing fair and stable employment, and that the principles of Uma Devi (supra) should not be misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees, especially where appointments are irregular rather than illegal and against sanctioned posts

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim for regularization by first noting her initial engagement against a vacant post and continuous service since 1995

The core of the respondents' denial was the alleged failure to meet the 240 working days criterion in two specific years (1998-99 and 2004-05)

However, the applicant provided Annexure-A2, asserting she met this criterion, and the respondents failed to specifically deny the authenticity of this document in their counter-affidavit, which the Tribunal viewed as an effective admission

This discrepancy regarding Annexure-A2 was a key factor in the Tribunal's decision

The Tribunal emphasized the "model employer" principle, citing State of Haryana & Anr. v. Piara Singh & Ors., which directs regularization for long-serving temporary employees

It also referred to Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors., to support the regularization of employees in continuous service with requisite qualifications

Most significantly, the Tribunal relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, which criticized the misapplication of Uma Devi (supra) to deny regularization to employees in irregular, but not illegal, appointments against sanctioned posts

The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant was initially appointed against a vacant post

The judgment in Jaggo (supra) mandates that government departments ensure fair employment practices and provides a framework for regularizing long-serving temporary employees

The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents should reconsider the regularization of the applicant and similarly placed employees based on the principles established in Jaggo (supra), ensuring they are treated fairly

The Tribunal directs the respondents to revisit the applicant's case for regularization, treating it at par with the 84 daily wage employees who were regularized in 2007 and 2011

If the respondents are satisfied with Annexure-A2, proving over 240 working days in the disputed years, they are to regularize the applicant retrospectively from the date the first batch of daily wage employees was regularized in 2007; otherwise, a proper reasoning for rejecting Annexure-A2 must be provided

The respondents are also directed to consider if any relaxation was granted to other employees, such as Smt. Sarita Devi, and apply similar exceptions to the applicant

Further, even if the above conditions are not met, the respondents must apply the ratio of Jaggo v. Union of India (supra) to the applicant and other similarly placed employees to take an appropriate decision on regularization

All these exercises are to be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order