Long-term full-time contractual service warrants regularization despite absence of sanctioned posts or subsequently prescribed qualifications.

The respondent was initially engaged on 25 September 1996 as a Daily Rated Mazdoor/Chowkidar and thereafter continued under successive daily-rated, part-time and contractual engagements on consolidated pay.

Although described as part-time or contractual, the Tribunal found that he performed full-time and perennial duties.

The Administration maintained his service book, granted earned leave under the CCS Leave Rules, 1972, and paid overtime and bonus.

His service was discontinued and restored on different occasions in 2012, following which he continued to pursue regularization.

The recruitment rules applicable to the post of MTS were notified on 28 June 2012 and required passing the secondary school examination; the respondent had studied up to Class IX.

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Administration to regularize his service from 25 September 1996, with notional benefits but without back wages.

The Administration challenged that order in the present writ petition.

Whether the respondent possessed the requisite educational qualification for consideration of regularization as MTS, having regard to the qualification applicable at the time of his initial engagement and the subsequent recruitment rules.

Whether the respondent’s successive daily-rated, part-time and contractual engagements, allegedly not against a sanctioned post, could justify regularization in view of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3).

Whether the Tribunal’s direction to regularize the respondent from 25 September 1996 required interference in judicial review.

The Court considered the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, concerning regularization of irregular or temporary appointments and the limits on directing regularization.

It applied the recruitment rules for MTS, including the provision empowering the Lieutenant Governor/Administrator to relax prescribed qualifications for a class or category of persons.

The Court further relied on the finality of its earlier decision in WP.CT/61/2023, which held that the qualification applicable at the time of initial engagement could be considered for regularization, and on the Administration’s assurance that such qualification would form part of the regularization scheme.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Union of India v. K. Velajagan, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, Mohammad Sagir v. Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, for the principles that the substance and duration of employment, rather than contractual labels, may determine the employee’s status; prolonged extraction of regular work under temporary arrangements may be exploitative; and Umadevi cannot be mechanically invoked to justify long-term ad hocism.

The Court held that the respondent’s lack of a Class X qualification under the 2012 MTS rules was not decisive because the applicable qualification at the time of his initial engagement was considered sufficient, the earlier judicial determination on that issue had attained finality, and the recruitment rules themselves permitted relaxation.

On the nature of employment, the Court treated the maintenance of a service book, grant of earned leave under the CCS Leave Rules, payment of overtime and bonus, and the performance of continuous full-time duties as circumstances demonstrating employment substantially akin to regular service.

The Tribunal had found that the respondent was nominally described as part-time or contractual but was in fact engaged on a full-time basis for perennial work.

Applying the later authorities distinguishing exploitative long-term temporary employment from genuinely irregular appointments, the Court concluded that reliance on the absence of a sanctioned post and on contractual nomenclature could not defeat the respondent’s claim in the circumstances.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioners concerning promotion were held inapplicable to the issue of regularization.

The time granted for compliance was extended by ninety days from the date of judgment.

WP.CT/53/2025 was dismissed without costs.