State as constitutional employer must consider regularizing daily wage employees serving perennial roles for extended periods.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector on a daily wage basis on March 9, 2005, at Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon

Despite completing over 20 years of continuous service in this capacity, his services were not regularized by the respondent authorities

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the regularization of his services, citing similar orders passed in other cases

During the hearing, the petitioner limited his prayer to seeking permission to submit a comprehensive representation to the respondents for a time-bound decision on his grievance

The State counsel expressed no objection to this limited prayer

Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his representation for regularization considered by the competent authorities in light of his 20-year continuous service and existing judicial precedents

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, which addressed the regularization of employees completing 10 years of service

It applied the principle from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), stating that government departments must act as model employers and avoid long-term temporary engagements for roles integral to the organization

The court further cited Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), which characterized the State as a "constitutional employer" under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, strictly deprecating "ad-hocism" and the evasion of regular employment obligations for perennial work

Finally, it referred to the State Government’s circular dated March 5, 2008, regarding the regularization of temporary employees

The court noted that the petitioner has performed continuous duties for approximately two decades

It reasoned that the long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels "corrodes confidence in public administration" and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection

Integrating the reasoning from Dharam Singh, the court emphasized that where work is perennial, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength rather than relying on precarious engagement

The court determined that the petitioner’s claim warranted a formal administrative review, directed by the principles of fairness and transparency mandated by the Constitution, rather than being dismissed on technicalities or administrative drift

The court directed the concerned authorities to consider and decide upon the representation within four months of receipt

The authorities were specifically instructed to take into account the petitioner’s 20 years of service and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the regularization of daily wage and temporary employees

No order was made as to costs