State must regularize long-serving irregular employees in perennial roles regardless of contractual labels or financial constraints.

The forty-five petitioners have been working as Part-Time Sweepers under the Respondent Department (Health and Ayush) since 1992

Despite over three decades of continuous service, their status has not been regularized or converted to full-time.

The State contended that regularization was hindered by the "extra financial burden," and the matter was pending financial approval

The petitioners, through their Union, submitted a representation on 08.09.2025 to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), seeking regularization and full-time status

During the hearing, the petitioners limited their prayer to a direction for the authorities to decide upon this pending representation

The court relied on the landmark decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which permits the one-time regularization of irregularly appointed employees who have served for over ten years on sanctioned posts

It applied the State of Chhattisgarh’s Circular dated 05.03.2008, which outlines the procedure for regularizing Class III and IV employees

the court cited Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which deprecate the misuse of "temporary" or "part-time" labels to evade regular employment obligations for perennial work

It also invoked Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), establishing that the State is a "constitutional employer" and cannot use financial stringency as a shield to override the mandates of Articles 14, 16, and 21

The court observed that the petitioners have rendered service for more than 30 years, far exceeding the 10-year threshold established in Umadevi

It analyzed recent Supreme Court jurisprudence which clarifies that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque and that the nature of the work—rather than the administrative label—should determine employment status

The court reasoned that since the work performed by sweepers is recurring and integral to the department's functioning, the State's continued reliance on "part-time" labels is increasingly difficult to justify under the equality mandate of Article 14

Rather than adjudicating the merits of regularization directly, the court determined that the Secretary (Ayush) must formally evaluate the petitioners' 2025 representation by applying the principles of fairness, dignity, and the specific legal directives regarding long-term daily-wage/part-time workers

This decision must be made in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the judgment, specifically within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation