Prolonged continuous service against acknowledged administrative necessity entitles temporary employees to regularization despite executive discretion in post creation.

The respondents were engaged as temporary/contractual Class-IV employees (Chowkidars, Gardeners, and Peons) in various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions between 2003 and 2008.

They served continuously for nearly two decades, eventually receiving wages at Collector rates.

On 11.04.2022, the State rejected their claim for regularization, prompting them to file W.P. No. 17275/2022.

During the writ proceedings, the departmental authorities admitted in their return that there was an acute shortage of Class-IV staff and that they had repeatedly proposed the creation of additional posts to accommodate the respondents.

A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 27.03.2025, directing the State to regularize the respondents or grant them regular pay scales and restraining fresh recruitment until such regularization.

The State preferred this writ appeal challenging that order.

1. Whether the delay of 449 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether long-term continuous service of temporary employees, coupled with departmental admissions of necessity and proposals for post-creation, entitles them to regularization despite the restrictions in Uma Devi (3).

3. Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus for the creation of posts, traditionally an executive function, in instances of prolonged administrative inaction.

The court primarily applied the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), which established that regularization is not a standard mode of recruitment and must adhere to Articles 14 and 16.

Principles from Jaggo v. Union of India & others and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, which suggest that equitable considerations apply when employees render decade-long uninterrupted service due to the State's failure to conduct regular recruitment.

The court also invoked the doctrine of a "Model Employer," emphasizing the State's duty to act fairly toward long-term staff.

The Court first condoned the 449-day delay, citing administrative approvals as sufficient cause.

On merits, the Court observed that unlike Uma Devi, the facts here involved an explicit admission by the employer that the respondents’ services were "indispensable" and that the work was recurring, not seasonal.

The Court reasoned that the State cannot take advantage of its own administrative inaction by extracting work for 20 years while ignoring its own department’s proposals for post-creation.

It distinguished Uma Devi by stating that judicial precedents cannot be applied in a vacuum; the specific admission of necessity by the consumer commissions created a unique equitable right.

Regarding the executive domain of creating posts, the Court held that the direction was not "in vacuum" but was founded on the State's own internal recommendations, thus not constituting unwarranted judicial encroachment.

Holding that a welfare State acting as a model employer cannot maintain temporary arrangements indefinitely while admitting the permanent nature of the work.

The Court directed the State to proceed with the regularization of the respondents by either creating additional posts or granting regular pay scales on the posts they currently hold.