Long-serving temporary employees are entitled to consideration for regularization despite their initial part-time designation.

The petitioners, appointed between 1996 and 1998, sought regularization and regular pay scales after completing 10 years of service

Previously, the High Court in W.P. No. 2686/2016 directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation

On 02.05.2016, the respondents rejected the claim, asserting that the petitioners were part-time employees and thus ineligible for regularization rules

The petitioners challenged this rejection, producing evidence (Annexure P/2 and a 2004 order) showing that similarly situated part-time workers had been regularized and that the petitioners had been re-engaged at Collector rates under a 1988 policy, working uninterruptedly for decades

1. Whether the petitioners, despite being labeled as "part-time" employees, are entitled to be considered for regularization based on their continuous long-term service and treatment as daily wagers

2. Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioners' representation was sustainable in light of the principles governing the regularization of long-serving temporary employees

The Court primarily applied the principles of regularization established in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and mandates a one-time regularization for employees in sanctioned posts with over ten years of service

It further relied on recent Supreme Court precedents in Jaggu v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826) and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 29214/2019), which caution against the "selective application" of Uma Devi to deny claims of long-serving employees who have rendered indispensable service

The Court observed that while the respondents labeled the petitioners as part-time, the factual record—specifically the uninterrupted service since 1996-1998 and payment at Collector rates—suggested they were effectively daily wagers rather than mere part-time laborers

The Court found that similarly situated persons in the same department had already been regularized

Applying the logic from Jaggu and Pawan Kumar, the Court reasoned that government departments must lead by example and cannot weaponize procedural formalities or misinterpret Uma Devi to reject the legitimate claims of workers who have served for decades

Since the petitioners’ roles appeared integral and their service was continuous, the Court determined that their claim required fresh consideration under the prevailing legal framework

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned rejection and remitting the matter to the respondent authorities. The respondents were directed to decide a fresh representation, to be filed by the petitioners within 15 days, within a period of two months, strictly in light of the cited Supreme Court judgments and government policy