The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment directing the regularisation of a daily wage employee who served for approximately 30 years, despite not fulfilling the statutory condition of completing five years of service by 25.11.1993. The Court held that the State cannot rely on technicalities to deny regularisation when the nature of work is perennial and the employee has rendered indispensable service for decades.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioner, Dande Chandra Sekhar, was appointed as a Casual Labourer on 13.11.1989 in the Agriculture Farm, Bapatla. He was later shifted to the Home Science College (Food Science and Technology) under the 3rd respondent, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, including an S.S.C. certificate and a Lower Grade Typewriting certificate in English.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s service was placed on Time-Scale vide proceedings dated 08.10.2008, with subsequent revisions aligning with new Pay Revision Commissions (PRC).
- The petitioner received Dearness Allowance (DA) and House Rent Allowance (HRA) periodically, including revisions under G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 27.08.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.26, extending benefits to Full-time/NMR/Daily Wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees appointed before 25.11.1993.
- The petitioner’s work was described as perennial and indispensable to the functioning of the 3rd respondent university.
- Despite completing 35 years of service, the respondents did not regularise his services, leading to the present writ petition.
Procedural History
- Writ Petition No.16832 of 2020 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking regularisation of services from the date of completion of 5 years of service, with consequential benefits, arrears of salary with 12% interest per annum, and costs.
- The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993, the cut-off date under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Amendment Act, 1998.
- The respondents also argued that the petitioner’s services were covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and that no orders for regularisation had been received from the Government.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the following judgments:
- Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), where the Supreme Court held that employees performing perennial duties for decades are entitled to regularisation despite initial irregular appointments.
- U.V.S.R. Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018 2 ALD 282 (DB)), where the Division Bench directed regularisation of employees who had served for over 10 years.
- State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari ((2010) 9 SCC 247), which clarified that the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi ((2006) 4 SCC 1) does not permit denial of regularisation based on technicalities.
The petitioner argued that his services were not illegal but merely irregular, and that the respondents had waived the 5-year condition by allowing him to serve for 30 years without termination.
For the Respondent(s)
The respondents contended:
- The petitioner had not completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993, the cut-off date under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998.
- The petitioner’s services were covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and he would receive pension benefits upon attaining 58 years.
- The judgment relied on by the petitioner in W.P.No.5009 of 2021 & 4465 of 2020 was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.213 of 2021.
- The respondents relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti ((2008) 12 SCC 675) to argue that no writ could be issued unless the act of absorption was in accordance with law.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A declaration that the respondents’ action in not regularising his services was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- A direction to regularise his services from the date of completion of 5 years of service, with all consequential benefits, arrears of salary with 12% interest per annum, and costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the statutory condition of completing 5 years of service by 25.11.1993 could be waived for an employee who had rendered 30 years of service in a perennial role, despite not fulfilling the condition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that:
- The nature of his work was perennial and indispensable to the functioning of the 3rd respondent university.
- The respondents had waived the 5-year condition by allowing him to serve for 30 years without termination.
- The Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826) had held that employees performing perennial duties for decades are entitled to regularisation, irrespective of initial irregular appointments.
- The respondents’ reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti ((2008) 12 SCC 675) was misplaced, as the petitioner’s case involved a violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent(s)
The respondents argued that:
- The petitioner had not completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993, the cut-off date under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998.
- The petitioner’s services were covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and he would receive pension benefits upon attaining 58 years.
- The judgment relied on by the petitioner in W.P.No.5009 of 2021 & 4465 of 2020 was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.213 of 2021.
- The respondents relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti ((2008) 12 SCC 675) to argue that no writ could be issued unless the act of absorption was in accordance with law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the petitioner’s arguments and the respondents’ contentions in detail. It noted that the petitioner had served for 30 years in a perennial role, despite not completing 5 years of service by 25.11.1993. The Court observed:
"The condition that 5 years should be completed should be waived for the petitioner; otherwise, it will be legally unvindicable or legally untenable. Since the petitioner has remained in service for approximately 30 years, the Government is deemed to have waived the stipulation requiring five years of service as of as on 25.11.1993, under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Amendment Act 1998."
The Court relied on the following precedents:
- Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), where the Supreme Court held that employees performing perennial duties for decades are entitled to regularisation despite initial irregular appointments.
- State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors. ((2013) 12 SCC 417), where the Supreme Court directed regularisation of employees performing perennial duties for over 30 years.
- Shripal & another v. Nagar Nizam Ghaziabad (2025 SCC Online SC 221), where the Supreme Court held that the State cannot rely on Umadevi to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years.
- Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC Online SC 1735), where the Supreme Court directed regularisation of employees with long, undisputed service in perennial roles.
- Vinod Kumar v. Union of India ((2024) 9 SCC 327), where the Supreme Court held that failure to recognise the substantive nature of roles and continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to principles of equity and fairness.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the petitioner’s services were covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, noting that the petitioner’s work was perennial and indispensable to the functioning of the 3rd respondent university. It held that the respondents’ reliance on technicalities to deny regularisation was unsustainable, particularly when the petitioner had served for 30 years without termination.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition in part. It directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s services from the date of completion of 5 years of service, with all consequential benefits. The Court held:
- The petitioner’s services are to be regularised from the date of completion of 5 years of service.
- The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary with 12% interest per annum from the date of completion of 5 years of service.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Waiver of Statutory Conditions for Long-Serving Employees
The judgment clarifies that courts may waive statutory conditions, such as the 5-year requirement under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998, for employees who have rendered 30 years of service in perennial roles. Practitioners should argue for waiver of such conditions when employees have served for decades in roles essential to the functioning of institutions.
Perennial Nature of Work as a Decisive Factor
- The Court emphasised that the perennial nature of work is a decisive factor in regularisation claims.
- Employees performing duties essential to the functioning of institutions, even if initially engaged as casual labourers, are entitled to regularisation after decades of service.
- Practitioners should highlight the indispensable nature of the employee’s role and the absence of termination to strengthen regularisation claims.
Rejection of Technicalities by Courts
- The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on technicalities, such as the 5-year condition under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998, to deny regularisation.
- Practitioners should challenge technical defences based on statutory conditions when employees have served for decades in perennial roles, as courts are increasingly inclined to prioritise substantive justice over procedural compliance.
