Long, continuous service requires consideration for regularisation under applicable policy, subject to eligibility.

The respondent was appointed in 1983 as a Water Man on a temporary basis and was paid from the Work Charged and Contingency Fund.

He served in the Police Department for approximately 43 years and was stated to have recently retired.

His claim for regularization was allowed by the Writ Court, which directed the State to consider his case under the policies dated 09.01.1990 and 16.05.2007, subject to availability of a vacant post and fulfillment of the requisite qualifications.

The State also sought condonation of a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to obtaining legal opinions and completing departmental and procedural formalities.

Whether the State had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 52-day delay in filing the writ appeal?

Whether the respondent, who had served the Police Department for approximately 43 years in a temporary/work-charged capacity, was entitled to consideration for regularization under the applicable State policies despite the State’s objection that he was not appointed against a sanctioned vacant post?

Whether the decision of the Writ Court directing consideration of the respondent’s claim for regularization was liable to be set aside in light of Union of India v. Ilmo Devi ?

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay may be condoned where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause,” with sufficiency of cause being the primary consideration.

The Court considered the principles concerning regularization under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , which restricts regularization of appointments made dehors the applicable recruitment rules, but also considered the equitable approach in cases of prolonged service in Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Jaggo v. Union of India , and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand .

The State relied on Union of India v. Ilmo Devi , under which regularization is generally impermissible where the employee was not appointed against a sanctioned vacant post; however, the Court distinguished that decision on its facts because the employee there had continued in service on the strength of an interim order.

The respondent’s claim was to be examined under the State policies dated 09.01.1990 and 16.05.2007, subject to the applicable conditions regarding vacant posts and qualifications.

The Court first found that the State had explained the 52-day delay through the process of obtaining legal opinion and completing departmental formalities; accordingly, sufficient cause was established and the delay was condoned.

On the merits, the Court emphasized that the respondent had rendered approximately 43 years of service to the Police Department and had no other employment, while the Department had continuously utilized his services without regularizing him or granting classification benefits.

Although the State relied on the absence of appointment against a sanctioned vacant post and on Ilmo Devi , the Court held that the factual context of that decision was different because the employee there continued in service pursuant to an interim order.

Applying the principles reflected in Sheo Narain Nagar , Jaggo , and Bhola Nath , the Court held that the respondent’s exceptionally long service justified consideration of his claim under the applicable regularization policy.

The Court also noted the respondent’s assertion that a sanctioned vacant post was available.

The appeal was dismissed as meritless, and the Writ Court’s order was affirmed.

The State authorities were directed to consider the respondent’s case in light of the policy dated 16.05.2007 and to award the consequential benefits, where applicable, within two months from the date of the appellate judgment, subject to the relevant policy requirements.