Topic

daily wage employees

4 articlesLatest July 2026
AP HC Waives 5-Year Service Rule for 30-Year Daily Wage Employee | Article 21 : AP HC
Case Law Analysis
|Andhra Pradesh High Court

AP HC Waives 5-Year Service Rule for 30-Year Daily Wage Employee | Article 21 : AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed regularisation of a daily wage employee with 30 years of service, waiving the statutory 5-year condition under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998. The ruling underscores that perennial work and decades of indispensable service override technicalities, reinforcing constitutional protections under Article 21. State governments must now justify denial of regularisation on stronger grounds.

Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction | Prior Representation to Competent Authority Mandatory Before Invoking High Court: Karnataka HC
Case Law Analysis
|Karnataka High Court

Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction | Prior Representation to Competent Authority Mandatory Before Invoking High Court: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition for regularisation of daily wage employees, ruling that exhaustion of alternative remedies-specifically, prior representation to the competent authority-is a prerequisite for invoking Article 226. The judgment reinforces that extraordinary remedies under writ jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of course without first pursuing statutory or administrative redressal.

TNSTCE Pension Scheme 1998 | Daily Wage Employees Entitled to Family Pension from Date of Appointment : Madras HC
Case Law Analysis
|Madras High Court

TNSTCE Pension Scheme 1998 | Daily Wage Employees Entitled to Family Pension from Date of Appointment : Madras HC

Madras High Court rules that daily wage employees of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation are entitled to family pension under the TNSTCE Pension Scheme 1998, counting their service from the date of appointment. The Court directed payment of pensionary benefits within eight weeks, reinforcing that arbitrary exclusions violate judicial discipline and service law principles.