Part-time employees working less than six hours daily on unsanctioned posts are ineligible for regularization.

The petitioner was engaged as a part-time daily wager (Attendant) in 1987.

After his services were terminated in 1989, he secured an award for reinstatement with continuity of service from the Labour Court, which was upheld by the High Court

Consequently, the respondents issued an order dated 29.09.2017 reinstating him as a part-time Attendant for three hours a day

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regularization and a regular time-scale of pay under Government Resolutions (GR) dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.2007

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner reached superannuation and retired

Whether a part-time employee working for only three hours a day is entitled to the benefit of regularization under Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007 or 17.10.1988.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits despite not being a regularly selected candidate.

The court primarily applied the eligibility criteria set out in Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007, which allows for the one-time regularization of part-time employees who have completed 10 years of continuous service and worked for six hours or more per day on a sanctioned post

It further considered GR dated 17.10.1988, noting it applies to daily wagers engaged for a full day's work rather than part-timers

The court also relied on the principle that long-term service as a part-timer does not automatically entitle an individual to regularization if they were not appointed through a regular selection process

The court found that although the petitioner had "continuity of service" by virtue of the Labour Court award, he failed to meet the specific working-hour threshold required for regularization.

The reinstatement order dated 29.09.2017 explicitly stated he was engaged for only three hours a day.

Since the 2007 Resolution requires a minimum of six hours of work per day on a sanctioned post, the petitioner was ineligible for its benefits.

Similarly, the 1988 Resolution was deemed inapplicable because the petitioner was a part-timer, not a full-time daily wager.

The court distinguished the petitioner’s case from cited precedents, noting he failed to prove he fulfilled the mandatory criteria of the relevant GRs.

However, the court took strong exception to a misstatement made by the respondent authority regarding the preparation of pension papers.

While denying the relief sought by the petitioner, the court imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Respondent No. 4 for misleading the court, with liberty to recover the sum from the erring official.