Model Employer Cannot Rely on Contractual Labels or Procedural Ad-Hocism to Deny Regularization of Long-Serving Employees

In brief

The question

1. Whether the original applicant's claim for regularization was barred by delay or Distinguished from the case of the regularized employee, Vijesh Kumar?

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the CAT's order. It held that the original applicant was entitled to the same relief as Vijesh Kumar.

It also directed

The Court directed the respondents to regularize Sunny’s service on the post of MTS (Group-C) effective from July 25, 2011, and ordered the payment of all consequential benefits, including arrears and pensionary benefits (where applicable), to his legal representative within three months

01Facts

The original applicant, Sunny, joined the Sub Post Office, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, as a part-time casual sweeper on September 3, 1984

¶ 2.1

He served continuously for over 35 years until his death on January 24, 2020

¶ 2.2

Despite multiple representations for regularization and pay parity with a similarly situated employee, Vijesh Kumar (who was regularized following litigation), the respondents took no action

¶ 2.3

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially dismissed his O.A. on grounds of delay, which was reversed by the High Court in a previous remand order holding the matter a "continuous cause of action"

¶ 2.5

On remand, the CAT again dismissed the claim, distinguishing his case from Vijesh Kumar’s

¶ 2.6

Smt. Kusum, Sunny's widow, pursued the matter as his legal representative

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the original applicant's claim for regularization was barred by delay or Distinguished from the case of the regularized employee, Vijesh Kumar?

¶ 2.6, 12

ii.2. Whether a part-time casual laborer who has rendered more than three decades of continuous service is entitled to regularization and consequential benefits under the doctrine of a "Model Employer"?

¶ 17, 19

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which proscribes arbitrariness and mandates the State to act as a "Model Employer"

¶ 13.9, 17

It relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which allows regularization of "irregular" but not "illegal" appointments after 10 years of service

¶ 15, 17

It further integrated recent jurisprudence from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), establishing that long-term "ad-hocism" and perpetual temporary labeling of perennial work are exploitative and violate fundamental rights, which cannot be waived

¶ 15-17, 20

04Reasoning

The Court found that the original applicant had performed "perennial" duties as a sweeper for over 35 years, making the respondent's reliance on the "part-time" or "contingency fund" labels a "mechanical application" of law to justify exploitation

¶ 12, 21

The Court determined there was no factual distinction between Sunny and Vijesh Kumar; both were appointed in the early 1980s for identical tasks, and denying parity was "manifestly arbitrary"

¶ 11, 12, 19

It rejected the defense that Sunny was a minor at appointment, noting that this objection was previously overruled in Vijesh Kumar’s case

¶ 9

Most significantly, the Court held that the State’s extracted labor under "precarious engagement" for decades creates a "legitimate expectation" of regularization that cannot be frustrated by procedural formalities or the employee's death during litigation

¶ 13.4, 22