Long-serving daily-wage employees’ regularisation eligibility must be assessed in compassionate appointment claims.

The petitioners were the wife and children of Basanthkumar Pujar, who worked as a daily-wage Gangman for GESCOM from 10 October 2003 until his death on 8 September 2020.

His wife applied for compassionate appointment on 28 September 2020; GESCOM rejected the application on the ground that he was a temporary employee.

She challenged that endorsement under Article 226, seeking recognition of his service as regular and consequential benefits, including compassionate appointment.

The Court noted the record showing his service from 2003 to 2020 and directed GESCOM to examine whether he was eligible for regularisation.

1. Whether GESCOM was required to reconsider the widow’s application for compassionate appointment by examining whether the deceased employee was eligible for regularisation, having regard to his service from 2003 until his death.

2. Whether the Court should itself direct compassionate appointment, or leave that question for the employer to determine under its regulations after reconsidering the deceased employee’s eligibility for regularisation.

The Court relied on Smt. Bibu v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 160, which, drawing on Premakala Shetty v. The Common Cadre Authority, stated that a daily-rated employee with more than ten years of service could be entitled to regularisation and that the employee’s death before formal regularisation should not, by itself, defeat the family’s claim to family pension.

It also considered State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttam Singh, (2021) 17 SCC 653, which explains that employment described as part-time or temporary does not, by itself, resolve whether the employee served against a regular vacancy; the relevant circumstances must be assessed.

The Court directed that any compassionate appointment must be considered strictly under GESCOM’s applicable regulations.

Basanthkumar’s recorded service of nearly seventeen years required GESCOM to assess whether he was eligible for regularisation rather than reject the compassionate-appointment application solely because he was designated a daily-wage Gangman.

Applying the principles in Bibu and Uttam Singh, the Court held that the employee’s status and eligibility had to be evaluated on the facts, including his uninterrupted service; it did not itself declare him regular or find the petitioners automatically entitled to appointment.

If GESCOM concluded that he was eligible for regularisation, it would then have to consider the widow’s application under the company’s regulations.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to reconsider the widow’s application for compassionate appointment in light of the Court’s observations, including the deceased employee’s uninterrupted service from 2003 until his death, and to complete the exercise within four months of receiving the order.

No order was made as to costs.