State must consider regularizing long-serving daily wagers following constitutional mandates on stable employment and fair labor practices.

The petitioner was appointed as a Gagman/Laborer on a daily-wage basis in 1998 within the Public Works Department of Chhattisgarh

Having completed over 25 years of continuous service, she sought regularization of her services based on State Government circulars and judicial precedents

She had previously submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3 on December 10, 2025, which remained pending

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her case for regularization as a one-time measure with consequential benefits

1. Whether the petitioner, having served for more than 25 years as a daily wager, is entitled to have her services considered for regularization in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the court should direct the State authorities to decide the petitioner's pending representation within a specific timeframe

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which mandated a one-time regularization measure for employees in irregular (not illegal) appointments who have served for over ten years in sanctioned posts

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which deprecated the "pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts" and "ad-hocism" to evade regular employment obligations

State of Chhattisgarh’s Circular dated March 5, 2008, which outlines the procedural framework for regularizing Class III and IV daily-wage employees

The Court examined the petitioner’s long tenure—exceeding two decades—against the evolving standard of the State as a "constitutional employer" rather than a mere market participant

The Court reasoned that keeping employees in "perpetual uncertainty" despite decades of service contradicts Article 14 and the principle of "equal pay for equal work"

While the petitioner had not initially filed her representation before the highest authorities (Respondents 1 and 2), the Court found that the facts warranted a directed administrative review to ensure the "legitimate rights of workmen" are not trumped by bureaucratic limitations

The Court directed the said respondents to consider and decide upon the representation in accordance with the law and the judicial precedents discussed (specifically Umadevi, Jaggo, and Dharam Singh) within a period of six months from the date of receipt