Regularization consideration cannot be denied solely on an appointment cutoff after decades of continuous service.

The applicant was engaged part-time in 1994 and appointed as a Woman Coolie on daily wages on 28 September 1998.

She claimed continuous service thereafter, but was not included among 18 daily-wage workers regularised by the respondents on 1 June 2021 under the Chandigarh Administration’s policy.

The respondents maintained that those workers were appointed before 1992 and that the applicant, appointed in 1998, did not satisfy the policy’s eligibility criteria.

Her representation was considered by the department but declined on that basis.

By the time the Tribunal decided the application, she had served for approximately 28 years and had superannuated on 31 March 2026.

She sought regularisation from 13 March 2015 and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the applicant’s exclusion from consideration for regularisation solely because she was appointed after 1992 could be sustained despite her prolonged continuous service.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider her claim for regularisation in light of Jaggo v. Union of India and the benefit extended to other workers.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for the application before the Tribunal.

The Chandigarh Administration’s circular dated 13 March 2015, as modified on 8 July 2015, governed regularisation of daily-wage/work-charged employees; the respondents relied on its eligibility conditions, including the pre-1992 appointment cut-off applied to the 2021 regularisation exercise.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), as discussed in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments is material, and eligible employees engaged against sanctioned posts who have served continuously for more than ten years were contemplated for consideration as a one-time measure.

Jaggo also cautions against mechanically applying Uma Devi to defeat legitimate claims of long-serving employees.

The Tribunal held that prolonged service and the treatment of comparable employees required the applicant’s claim to be considered rather than rejected solely by reference to the cut-off date.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had continuously worked for approximately 28 years and that the respondents continued to require her services.

Although the 18 workers regularised in 2021 had been appointed before 1992, the Tribunal considered it arbitrary to rely mechanically on that distinction without examining the applicant’s prolonged service and the treatment of those workers.

Applying Jaggo, it concluded that the policy cut-off could not, without a legally sustainable justification, foreclose consideration of her claim.

The Tribunal did not itself find that she was entitled to regularisation; it required the respondents to assess her case in accordance with law and the relevant principles.

If they failed to comply within that period, they would be liable to pay the applicant ₹50,000 as compensation for delay.