Mandatory Consideration of Daily Wage Employees' Regularization Claims Following Ten Years of Continuous Service.

The seven petitioners are daily wage employees of Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya (Respondent No. 3), serving in Class-III and Class-IV capacities for durations ranging from 8 to 10 years.

Seeking regularization and parity with other government departments, the petitioners submitted a formal representation to the University on October 17, 2025.

Due to the University's failure to decide on said representation, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization, amendment of University Service Rules, and absorption into sanctioned vacant posts with consequential benefits.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to consider and decide upon the petitioners' pending representation for regularization in a time-bound manner.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of regularization based on their continuous 8 to 10 years of service as per existing judicial precedents.

The court primarily applied the principles of regularization for temporary/daily wage employees who have completed 10 years of service as established by the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others (2018).

It further relied on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which emphasizes that government departments must act as "model employers" by providing stable employment and avoiding the "administrative drift" of keeping integral roles temporary for extended periods.

Additionally, the court noted the principles regarding the regularization of daily wagers as discussed in Bhav Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the regularization claim but focused on the procedural delay in the University’s administrative decision-making.

By citing Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Jaggo, the Court reinforced the standard that long-term temporary employment in roles essential to an organization's functioning necessitates a fair evaluation for regularization.

Since the petitioners limited their prayer to a direction for the disposal of their pending representation, and Respondent No. 3 raised no objection to such a direction, the Court determined that a time-bound administrative review was the appropriate initial remedy.

It directed the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 3. The Respondent University is ordered to consider and take a decision on said representation in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation.