Long-term daily-wage service cannot be rejected solely on cutoff-date grounds; regularization claims require holistic consideration.

The petitioner was engaged by the Water Resources Department as a daily-wage waterman on 2 November 1998 and claimed to have worked continuously for more than twenty years.

She sought regularisation under the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and the State policy/circular dated 5 March 2008.

Her claim was rejected by order dated 28 January 2021, principally on the ground that her engagement was subsequent to the cut-off date of 31 December 1997.

Challenging that rejection, she filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order and directions for consideration and regularisation.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for regularisation could be rejected solely because her engagement took place after the cut-off date of 31 December 1997 under the circular dated 5 March 2008?

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the petitioner’s claim by examining the nature of her employment, length of service, service record, and availability of sanctioned vacancies, in light of the principles governing long-term temporary and daily-wage employment?

The Court applied the principles governing regularisation under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, particularly the distinction between “illegal” appointments and “irregular” appointments made against duly sanctioned posts, and the recognised possibility of considering long-serving employees for regularisation as a one-time measure.

It held that the State’s circular dated 5 March 2008 need not be applied mechanically in every regularisation case and that the authority must consider relevant factors including the nature of employment, length of service, past record, and sanctioned vacancies.

The Court further relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032, concerning the improper use of Umadevi to defeat legitimate claims of long-serving employees.

Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2215, which cautioned that Umadevi cannot be used to justify exploitative, indefinite daily-wage or ad hoc employment.

The Court found that the petitioner had continuously served the department for more than twenty years and that her claim had been rejected solely on the basis of the 31 December 1997 cut-off date.

It held that such mechanical reliance on the circular was insufficient because regularisation required an assessment of the actual nature and duration of the engagement, the petitioner’s service record, and the existence of sanctioned vacancies.

Applying the principles in Umadevi, Jaggo, and Shripal, the Court emphasised that prolonged temporary engagement could amount to exploitation and that the constitutional principles governing public employment could not be applied selectively to deny consideration of a potentially legitimate claim.

Since the competent authority had not undertaken this broader examination, its order dated 28 January 2021 could not be sustained.

The Court quashed the order dated 28 January 2021 and remitted the matter to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim for regularisation, keeping in view the Court’s observations regarding the nature and duration of her employment, her service record, and other relevant factors.

The authority was directed to complete the exercise within 120 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court did not itself order regularisation but directed reconsideration of the claim.