State Must Consider Regularization of Long-Term Daily Wagers in Light of Constitutional Obligations Against Ad-hocism

The Petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner (Class IV post) on a daily wage basis under the Health Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh in 2008.

He has been working continuously in this capacity for approximately 18 years but has not been regularized.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him permanent status/absorption with all consequential and monetary benefits.

1. Whether the Petitioner, having completed over a decade of continuous service as a daily wager, is entitled to have his representation for regularization considered by the State authorities in light of recent judicial precedents.

The court relied on the landmark judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 regarding the regularization of temporary employees.

Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 2 SCC (L) 472, which addressed the 10-year service threshold.

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) SCC Online SC 3826, emphasizing the State's duty as a "constitutional employer".

Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735), which deprecated "ad-hocism" and informal recruitment used to evade regular employment obligations.

The court observed that the Petitioner has performed the same basic public functions for 18 years, a duration well exceeding the decade-long engagement criteria established for regularization.

The court noted that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot indefinitely extract regular labor under "temporary labels" to balance budgets or avoid statutory obligations.

By citing Dharam Singh, the court emphasized that such perennial work must reflect in the sanctioned strength of the establishment.

The Judge distinguished the State’s reliance on Premsagar Chouhan, noting that the Petitioner in the present case is currently in service, unlike the discontinued employee in the cited precedent.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s claim must be re-evaluated against the evolving legal landscape that favors stability in long-term public employment.

The court directed the concerned authority to decide the claim "sympathetically in an objective manner" within four months of receipt of the representation.

The holding mandates that the authorities must decide the claim while strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Jaggo, Bhola Nath, and Dharam Singh.