Long-serving irregular employees are entitled to consideration for regularization as a one-time measure under the Umadevi mandate.

The four petitioners were appointed as Gangmen/Laborers on a daily-wage basis between 1998 and 1999 under the Public Works Department (National Highway Division), Ambikapur

Having completed over 25 years of continuous service, they claimed entitlement to regularization based on State Government circulars and judicial precedents

They submitted representations to the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) in August 2024, which remained pending

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to consider their cases for regularization as a one-time measure

The Court primarily applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and mandates a one-time regularization measure for employees with over 10 years of service in sanctioned posts

It further relied on recent Supreme Court precedents, including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), and Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), which deprecate "ad-hocism," criticize the misuse of temporary labels for perennial work, and emphasize the State's duty as a "model employer" under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution

Additionally, the court cited the State of Chhattisgarh’s circular dated 05.03.2008, which outlines the procedure for regularizing Class III and IV daily-wage employees

The Court observed that the petitioners have rendered more than two decades of service, suggesting their roles are integral to the department's functioning

Following the reasoning in Jaggo and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, the Court noted that prolonged temporary engagement for work of a perennial nature constitutes an unfair labor practice and that contractual labels cannot bypass constitutional protections

The Court highlighted that under the Umadevi doctrine, if the initial appointments were merely irregular (not illegal) and against sanctioned posts, the State is obligated to conduct a regularization exercise

Since the petitioners had not yet approached the high-level authorities (Respondents No. 1 2) with their grievances, the Court determined that a directed representation was the appropriate procedural step to ensure the State evaluates the merits of their service history against the legal framework

The Court directed Respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider and decide upon said representation in light of the cited Supreme Court judgments and State circulars within a period of six months from the date of receipt

Holding follows the principle that the State must lead by example in providing stable employment and cannot indefinitely retain workers on daily wages for perennial duties