Status quo of daily-wage employees maintained pending independent consideration of regularization claims under applicable rules.

The appellants were appointed as Class IV daily wage employees in the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, and have served for nearly 15 years

Despite continuous service of more than 240 days per year and performing clerical/administrative duties, their services were not regularized despite the alleged availability of 29 vacant posts

The grievance arose when the Municipal Corporation issued a notice/advertisement dated 21.04.2015 to hire placement agencies/labour contractors to supply manpower for the same roles, effectively threatening the appellants' continued engagement

The appellants challenged this notice and sought regularization.

The Writ Petitions (WPS No. 2802/2015) were dismissed by a Single Judge on 26.09.2025, leading to these Writ Appeals

Whether the appellants, having rendered long-term continuous service, possess a legitimate expectation to be considered for regularization and continued employment in preference to contract labor

Whether the Municipal Corporation should be permitted to replace existing daily wage employees with contract laborers through placement agencies

The Court primarily applied the principle of "Legitimate Expectation" regarding the fair consideration for regularization of long-term daily wage employees

It also considered the administrative obligations of local bodies under Urban Administration and Development regulations.

While the court did not explicitly cite Umadevi, it implicitly acknowledged the framework of regularisation subject to "applicable rules and law"

The decision was ultimately guided by the principle of "Judicial Undertaking," where an affidavit filed by a State authority can resolve a grievance without a full adjudication on merits

The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the Single Judge's dismissal but focused on the subsequent developments and the Respondent Corporation's change in stance during the appeal

The Respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation) filed an affidavit dated 01.03.2026, conceding that the appellants would be permitted to continue in their respective posts as they were prior to the 2015 advertisement

The Court noted that since 25 of the original 28 employees were still working, the primary threat (replacement by contractors) was mitigated by the Corporation's voluntary assurance to maintain the status quo and take "necessary administrative steps" for implementation

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to quash the 2015 order on merits, choosing instead to bind the State to its undertaking

The Court held that the appellants shall be permitted to continue in service on their respective posts

The Respondent authorities were directed to strictly adhere to their undertaking

However, the Court clarified that this order does not confer an automatic right of regularization; rather, the appellants' claims for regularization must be considered independently in accordance with the law