Long-term continuous service justifies reconsideration for regularization despite initial part-time appointment status.

The petitioners, who have been working uninterruptedly since their appointments between 1996 and 1998, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 01.06.2016

In a previous round of litigation (W.P. No. 3298/2016), the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for regularization

The respondents rejected the claim on 01.06.2016, contending that the petitioners were part-time employees and thus ineligible for regularization rules

However, records showed that similarly situated part-time employees were regularized in 2012, and the petitioners had been re-engaged at Collector rates under a 1988 policy

1. Whether the petitioners, despite being labeled as part-time workers, are entitled to be considered for regularization based on their continuous service and the nature of their duties

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioners' claim for regularization was legally sustainable in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court

The Court primarily applied the principles of regularization for daily wagers established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggu v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826) and Pawan Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (SLP (C) No. 29214/2019)

These precedents clarify that the landmark Uma Devi judgment was intended to regularize "regular" (but not "illegal") appointments where employees served in sanctioned posts for over ten years

The court also emphasized the state’s obligation to provide fair and stable employment as per international labor standards

The Court observed that while the respondents labeled the petitioners as "part-time," the factual reality indicated they performed regular daily work, received monthly salaries, and were engaged at Collector rates since 2004

The Court found that the respondents had regularized similarly situated employees via an order dated 31.03.2012, indicating discriminatory treatment

Applying the logic from Jaggu v. Union of India, the Court reasoned that the Uma Devi judgment should not be "weaponized" to indiscriminately reject claims of long-serving employees whose roles are integral to the organization

Since the petitioners had rendered decades of indispensable service, their status as "part-time" was deemed a procedural formality that did not preclude a review for regularization

The Court held that the petitioners' case deserves reconsideration in light of their long tenure and payment at Collector rates

The respondents were directed to decide a fresh representation to be filed by the petitioners within two months, strictly adhering to the Government policy and the Supreme Court judgments in Jaggu and Pawan Kumar