State directed to consider re-engagement and absorption of long-serving daily-wage driver after vehicle condemnation.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage Driver in the establishment of Opposite Party No. 4 with effect from 1 February 2001, initially until the joining of a regular Driver, but he continued without interruption for more than two decades.

He claimed regularization under the Government Resolution dated 17 September 2013 and relied upon the High Court’s earlier direction in W.P.(C) No. 28196 of 2020 requiring consideration of his claim.

The Collector, Jajpur rejected the claim by order dated 6 January 2021, principally on the grounds that the petitioner had not been selected through a regular recruitment process, had not been appointed against a sanctioned vacant post, and was not covered by the 17 September 2013 Resolution.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the official vehicle driven by the petitioner was condemned, and the State contended that his engagement ended in December 2024; thereafter, he was allegedly driving a hired vehicle and receiving wages from its owner.

The petitioner subsequently sought, in the alternative, engagement and absorption as a Driver or in any Group-D post in another establishment under the State.

1. Whether the petitioner, having served continuously as a daily-wage Driver from 1 February 2001 until December 2024, was entitled to regularization notwithstanding the absence of a formal recruitment process or appointment against a sanctioned post.

2. Whether the petitioner’s long and continuous service entitled him to consideration for re-engagement and absorption as a Driver or in a Group-D post after the condemnation of the vehicle and cessation of his earlier engagement.

3. Whether the rejection order dated 6 January 2021 required interference in light of the principles governing prolonged temporary or daily-wage employment by the State.

The Court considered the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, concerning the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the limited circumstances in which long-serving employees may be considered for regularization.

It also relied on the more recent decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 523.

These authorities emphasize that the State, as a model employer, cannot use contractual or daily-wage nomenclature to perpetuate precarious employment where the work is perennial, essential and continuously performed; that Umadevi is not an absolute bar against relief in cases of irregular rather than illegal appointment; and that prolonged, unbroken service and the recurring nature of the duties are relevant to fair consideration for regularization or absorption.

The Court also treated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as requiring fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness in State employment practices.

The Court found from the engagement documents that the petitioner had worked continuously as a daily-wage Driver from 1 February 2001 until December 2024, performing recurring duties connected with the functioning of the State establishment.

Applying the principles against indefinite and exploitative temporary engagement, the Court held that the petitioner’s prolonged service warranted favourable consideration, particularly because his disengagement resulted from condemnation of the vehicle rather than any misconduct or adverse service record.

However, the Court did not directly order regularization or quash the rejection order.

It took account of the State’s contention that the petitioner was no longer engaged and that the earlier vehicle had ceased to be available.

Balancing these circumstances with the petitioner’s long service, the Court granted limited relief by directing the State to explore his engagement as a Driver or in a Group-D post in any establishment under Opposite Party No. 1, followed by absorption against such post.

Nevertheless, it held that the petitioner’s continuous daily-wage service from 1 February 2001 to December 2024 justified favourable consideration for alternative employment.

Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to explore the possibility of engaging and thereafter absorbing the petitioner against a Driver post or a Group-D post in any establishment under its control, and to take a fresh decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from receipt of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.