Preliminary departmental-list inclusion does not establish pre-cutoff engagement or confer entitlement to regularisation.

The appellants challenged the common judgment dated 31.10.2025 by which the writ Court dismissed their petitions seeking inclusion in the list of PDLs/TDLs for consideration of regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017.

They claimed to have been engaged as daily-rated workers between 2012 and 2015, before the Government’s ban on fresh engagement of daily wagers imposed with effect from 17.03.2015.

Although their names allegedly appeared in earlier departmental lists, they were excluded from the list of 472 PDLs/TDLs, while 37 other persons were included.

An Inquiry Committee found that 128 persons, including the appellants, were not reflected in the relevant records and that their CVs had been prepared after the cut-off date.

1. Whether the appellants established that they had been engaged as daily-rated workers before 17.03.2015 and were consequently entitled to consideration for regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017.

2. Whether the appellants’ earlier inclusion in departmental lists, and the inclusion of 37 other persons in the final list, created an enforceable right or established discriminatory treatment in their favour.

3. Whether the subsequent preparation of the PDL/TDL list and tentative seniority list during the pendency of the appellants’ claims was legally impermissible.

The Court applied Government Order No. 43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015, which prohibited fresh engagement of daily-wage workers from that date, and SRO 520 of 2017, under which regularisation could be considered only for persons satisfying the prescribed eligibility requirements, including engagement before the cut-off date.

A claimant seeking the benefit of a regularisation policy must first establish the foundational fact of qualifying engagement through reliable material such as engagement orders, muster rolls, wage lists, attendance records, or payment records.

A preliminary or provisional departmental list does not, by itself, confer a right to regularisation and remains subject to verification against original records.

Administrative findings based on an inquiry into relevant records will not be interfered with absent proof that they are erroneous, perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the record.

A claim of parity or discrimination is sustainable only where the claimant first establishes that they are similarly situated to the persons receiving the alleged benefit.

The Court held that the appellants produced no engagement orders or other reliable material showing engagement before 17.03.2015, nor did they establish that their names appeared in the relevant muster rolls or regular wage lists for any period before the cut-off date.

Their earlier appearance in a departmental list was treated as provisional and incapable of establishing a vested right because the list was subject to verification.

The Inquiry Committee’s examination of the departmental records revealed that the appellants were not borne on the relevant records and that their CVs had been prepared after the ban; its report had not been challenged or shown to be perverse or contrary to the record.

Although the Court acknowledged that departmental records ordinarily remain in official custody, it held that this did not eliminate the appellants’ obligation to produce some reliable supporting material once their claimed engagement was specifically disputed.

The alleged inclusion of 37 other persons did not assist the appellants because they failed to demonstrate that they were similarly situated; the respondents had explained that those persons were verified as having been engaged before the ban.

Consequently, the appellants had no enforceable right to inclusion in the list or consideration for regularisation, and preparation of a subsequent list during the pendency of their claim was not impermissible.

Their earlier provisional inclusion did not create any enforceable entitlement, and the claim of discrimination based on inclusion of 37 other persons was rejected.

Finding no error of law or fact in the writ Court’s judgment, the Division Bench upheld the common judgment dated 31.10.2025 and dismissed both intra-Court appeals along with the connected miscellaneous applications.