Prolonged continuous service warrants regularization of temporary status employees to prevent exploitation and unfair labor practices.

The respondent was appointed as a Contingent Paid Chowkidar on February 22, 1982, initially performing five hours of duty daily

From May 23, 2007, until his retirement on June 30, 2019, he was assigned eight hours of duty as a Letter Box Peon

His request for "Temporary Status" was initially rejected by the Department of Posts on August 4, 1993, on the ground that he was a part-time casual worker

However, a subsequent departmental policy dated August 9, 1996, extended benefits to casual laborers who were in employment as of September 10, 1993

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ranchi, quashed the 1993 rejection and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent Temporary Status and subsequent regularization as Group ‘D’/MTS

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition, specifically contesting the direction for regularization while conceding the conferment of temporary status

1. Whether an employee who has rendered over 25 years of continuous service after being conferred "Temporary Status" is entitled to regularization in light of the constitutional scheme of public employment.

2. Whether the initial rejection of the respondent's claim in 1993, which remained unchallenged for a significant period, precludes the grant of regularization after the department's own 1996 policy change.

The court primarily relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which permitted a one-time regularization for "irregular" (not illegal) appointments of qualified persons who served for over ten years against sanctioned posts

It further integrated the "humane resolution" principle from Jaggo v. Union of India, which prevents the penalization of long-serving employees performing necessary state functions

The court applied the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation" and the principle that contractual labels cannot override constitutional guarantees as established in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand

Additionally, it cited Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, holding that procedural formalities cannot deny regularization to employees performing regular duties over a considerable period

The court observed that the petitioners conceded the respondent's entitlement to "Temporary Status" based on the Policy Decision dated August 9, 1996, acknowledging he was in service as of September 10, 1993

Consequently, the respondent's continuous service from 1993 to 2019 (approximately 26 years) was undisputed

The court reasoned that while the 1993 rejection was not immediately challenged, the petitioners' own 1996 policy supervened that order, making the respondent eligible for benefits

Applying Umadevi and Jaggo, the court found that the respondent's prolonged service transformed his status from a mere ad-hoc arrangement into a scenario demanding fair regularization to prevent unfair labor practices

The court rejected the petitioners' technical objections regarding the 1993 order, noting that once the department accepted the temporary status under the 1996 policy, they could not arbitrarily deny the natural corollary of regularization for an employee with over two decades of unblemished service

The court upheld the CAT's directions to quash the 1993 order and consider the respondent's case for grant of temporary status and regularization as Group ‘D’/MTS from the date he became eligible

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly