Long-serving ad hoc employee must be considered for retrospective regularization, with a supernumerary post if necessary.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage Typist on 4 November 1986 in the Hill Development Department of the State Planning Commission and subsequently appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Junior Assistant on 25 July 1989.

Although his services were terminated on 23 March 1991, he was reinstated pursuant to an interim order and continued in service thereafter.

His earlier writ petition was ultimately allowed on 17 May 2005, with a direction permitting him to continue as Lower Division Assistant subject to availability of post and work.

Several similarly situated employees were regularized with effect from 17 May 2005.

The petitioner consequently sought regularization from the same date.

During the proceedings, the petitioner superannuated on 30 September 2024.

Whether the petitioner’s case for regularization ought to have been considered on the basis of his prolonged service and parity with similarly situated employees who were regularized with effect from 17 May 2005.

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent superannuation could defeat his claim for regularization and consequential service benefits relating to his past service.

Whether the respondents could be directed to create a supernumerary post if no sanctioned vacancy was available for granting the appropriate relief.

The Court applied the principle that a public authority must fairly consider a claim for regularization where the employee has rendered longstanding service and the administration itself has treated the employee as similarly situated to persons who were regularized.

It further applied the principle of parity and non-arbitrariness in administrative action, particularly where official communications repeatedly recommended identical treatment for the claimant.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing consideration of regularization and consequential service benefits.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the respondents had not consistently rejected the petitioner’s claim; rather, departmental communications repeatedly recommended his regularization on the ground that his case was comparable to those of employees regularized from 17 May 2005.

The objections concerning qualification and non-availability of a vacancy were viewed in light of the petitioner’s long service, the State’s earlier representations, and the treatment afforded to similarly situated employees.

The Court also held that superannuation could not deprive the petitioner of the benefit of considering his approximately four decades of service, including service rendered on a daily-wage and ad hoc basis.

Accordingly, the Court considered it appropriate to direct consideration of regularization from the parity date and permitted creation of a supernumerary post if necessary.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for regularization as a Typist or in any other equivalent Class III post, keeping in view his service from 1986 and his ad hoc appointment as Junior Assistant from 25 July 1989, with effect from 17 May 2005—the date on which similarly situated employees were regularized.

If no post was available, the State was directed to create a supernumerary post.

The petitioner was also held entitled to all admissible consequential service benefits from 17 May 2005.