The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that prolonged, continuous service by a casual employee against a sanctioned post, even without formal appointment, triggers a constitutional right to regularization under Article 14. Rejecting the State’s reliance on procedural technicalities, the Court held that decades of uninterrupted service cannot be nullified by the label of 'part-time' or 'contingency fund' employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Kusum, wife of the deceased employee Sunny, sought regularization of his service and consequential benefits including pension, after he worked continuously for 35 years as a part-time casual sweeper at the Sub Post Office, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Despite performing duties identical to regular employees, Sunny was paid from the contingency fund and never absorbed into the regular establishment. His repeated representations for regularization and pay parity were ignored by the Department of Posts.
Key Facts
- Sunny was engaged as a part-time casual sweeper on 03.09.1984 at the Sub Post Office, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur
- His initial daily wage was Rs. 27, later enhanced to Rs. 380 per month, then Rs. 755 per month in 1999, Rs. 4,835 per month in 2013, and Rs. 11,076 per month in October 2015
- He worked continuously until his death on 24.01.2020
- He filed representations on 22.08.1995, 04.10.2000, 20.05.2015, and 10.04.2017 seeking regularization and pay parity
- The Department never disputed the fact of his continuous service in any reply filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
- A similarly situated employee, Vijesh Kumar, appointed in 1983 as a part-time sweeper at another post office, was regularized as MTS (Group-C) w.e.f. 25.07.2011 after a series of tribunal and court orders
- The Department did not challenge Vijesh Kumar’s regularization on grounds of minor age or lack of appointment letter
- The petitioner’s age at the time of appointment was not disputed by the Department until litigation, despite an affidavit filed in 2019 indicating he was born in 1969 (making him 15 in 1984)
Procedural History
- 03.09.1984: Sunny begins service as part-time sweeper
- 22.08.1995: First representation filed for pay parity
- 04.10.2000: Second representation submitted
- 20.05.2015: Third representation seeking regularization under O.M. dated 22.01.2015
- 10.04.2017: Final representation before retirement
- 24.01.2020: Sunny dies during pendency of proceedings
- 15.02.2006: CAT grants Vijesh Kumar status of full-time casual labour
- 18.09.2008: CAT regularizes Vijesh Kumar
- 17.12.2009: Rajasthan HC affirms Vijesh Kumar’s regularization
- 22.03.2011: Vijesh Kumar formally regularized as MTS (Group-C)
- 25.07.2011: Consequential order issued for Vijesh Kumar’s regularization
- 12.01.2019: O.A. No. 71/2019 filed by Sunny before CAT seeking regularization and parity
- 23.09.2019: CAT dismisses O.A. on grounds of delay and distinguishability from Vijesh Kumar
- 02.11.2022: Rajasthan HC sets aside CAT’s dismissal, holds case involves continuous cause of action, remands for fresh consideration
- 30.07.2024: CAT again dismisses O.A., reiterating delay and lack of similarity with Vijesh Kumar
- 28.03.2025: Writ Petition No. 6974/2025 filed before Rajasthan HC
- 15.04.2026: Arguments concluded
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (Smt. Kusum): Argued that Sunny’s 35-year unbroken service, identical duties to Vijesh Kumar, and continuous representations established a legitimate expectation of regularization. Relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand to assert that long-term casual service cannot be denied regularization merely due to initial irregularity.
Respondents (Union of India & Postal Authorities): Contended that Sunny was a part-time casual worker paid from contingency fund, with no sanctioned post, no appointment letter, and no formal recruitment. Argued his service began in 1999, not 1984, and that he was a minor at the time of engagement, rendering any contract void. Claimed his claim was barred by delay and that his case was distinguishable from Vijesh Kumar’s.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the CAT order dated 30.07.2024; (2) regularization of Sunny’s service w.e.f. 25.07.2011 (same date as Vijesh Kumar); (3) payment of all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits; and (4) arrears of salary with interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 14 of the Constitution mandates regularization of a casual employee who has rendered continuous, unbroken service for over three decades in a permanent, sanctioned post, performing duties identical to regular employees, especially when the State has failed to conduct formal recruitment and has granted parity to a similarly situated employee.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Sunny’s service was not merely irregular but integral to the functioning of the Sub Post Office. He cited Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) to assert that the Uma Devi doctrine does not bar regularization where service is continuous, non-illegal, and against a sanctioned post. He emphasized that the State’s silence on representations and its failure to dispute the tenure in its reply amounted to acquiescence. The argument that Sunny was a minor in 1984 was rejected as it was never raised before the CAT and was inconsistent with Vijesh Kumar’s case, where the same ground was ignored. The principle of equal pay for equal work and legitimate expectation were invoked under Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine SC 129).
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that Sunny’s appointment was purely contractual, funded from contingency, and lacked any formal recruitment or sanctioned post. They argued his service began in 1999, not 1984, and that the absence of an appointment letter invalidated his claim. They relied on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) to argue that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization. They further claimed that the cause of action ceased upon Sunny’s death and that his wife could not claim pensionary benefits as he was never a regular employee.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence on regularization of long-serving casual employees, emphasizing that Uma Devi was never intended to shield the State from its constitutional obligations. The Court observed:
"The judgment in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly 'irregular,' and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount."
The Court noted that the Department had never disputed Sunny’s tenure of service from 1984 in its reply before the CAT, despite having access to muster rolls and service records. The argument that he was a minor in 1984 was deemed an afterthought, inconsistent with the Department’s conduct in Vijesh Kumar’s case, where the same issue was not raised. The Court held that the State’s failure to recruit regularly, while extracting full-time labour from casual workers, amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14.
The Court further held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was triggered by the State’s repeated extensions of service, pay hikes, and failure to terminate employment despite the contractual label. The Court cited Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand to affirm that fundamental rights under Article 14 cannot be waived by accepting contractual terms, especially when the State holds overwhelming bargaining power.
The Court rejected the contention that Sunny’s death extinguished his claim, noting that the cause of action was continuous and that the legal representative was duly substituted. The Court emphasized that the State, as a model employer, cannot evade its constitutional duty by relying on technicalities of appointment or funding source.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The CAT order dated 30.07.2024 is quashed. Sunny’s service is regularized w.e.f. 25.07.2011 on the post of MTS (Group-C), with all consequential benefits including pensionary entitlements. The respondents shall pay all arrears of salary, allowances, and pensionary benefits within three months from the date of judgment. The benefits shall be calculated as if Sunny had been a regular employee since 25.07.2011.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuous Service Beyond 10 Years Triggers Constitutional Obligation
- Practitioners must now argue that any casual employee serving continuously for over 10 years against a sanctioned post, even without formal appointment, is entitled to regularization under Article 14
- The State cannot rely on lack of appointment letters, contingency fund payments, or absence of recruitment rules to deny regularization
- The burden shifts to the State to prove that the service was illegal or that no sanctioned post existed
Parity with Similarly Situated Employees Is Mandatory
- If the State has regularized a similarly placed employee under identical circumstances, it cannot deny the same relief to another on grounds of delay or distinguishability
- The Court will examine the nature of duties, duration of service, and departmental recognition - not procedural labels
- Failure to grant parity constitutes discrimination under Article 14
Death of Employee Does Not Extinguish Right to Regularization
- The cause of action for regularization is continuous and survives the death of the employee
- Legal representatives are entitled to claim all consequential benefits, including pension, if the employee would have been eligible had he been regularized during his lifetime
- Courts will not allow the State to exploit death as a procedural loophole to avoid constitutional obligations
