#regularization of services

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed state authorities to consider regularization of a watchman with 19 years of continuous service, reinforcing that long-term temporary employees cannot be denied constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16. The ruling mandates compliance with Supreme Court precedents, ensuring fair treatment in public employment and setting a precedent for similar cases across government departments.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that continuous, unblemished service of over three decades in a sanctioned post justifies regularization as a one-time constitutional remedy, even when state rules impose stricter eligibility criteria. This sets a critical precedent for long-serving casual and time-scale workers across state-funded institutions, affirming that service duration trumps procedural barriers when fundamental rights to livelihood are at stake.

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that when regularization rules are amended or lifted from stay, employers must be given a fair opportunity to assess eligibility under the updated framework. Direct orders for regularization without allowing a fresh representation violate procedural fairness and undermine administrative discretion. This applies to all government and public sector employees seeking regularization under revised service rules.

The Karnataka High Court reinforced the constitutional mandate of 'equal pay for equal work' under Article 14, holding that daily wage workers performing identical duties as regular employees must receive the same pay scale, including retroactive revisions, even if their service was interrupted by illegal termination. The ruling mandates financial parity for affected workers, setting a precedent for similar employment disputes.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that while no formal regularization scheme exists, the State must consider claims of contractual faculty with 13+ years of service and institutional recommendation, directing a decision within eight weeks. This sets a precedent for legitimate expectation in public employment, impacting similarly situated contractual employees.

The Delhi High Court has held that prolonged service as a daily wage employee, even spanning decades, cannot generate a legal entitlement to retrospective regularization or notional pay fixation in the absence of a statutory rule, policy, or contractual provision. This ruling reinforces that administrative discretion in public employment cannot override the principle of legality, affecting thousands of non-permanent workers seeking backdated benefits.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that daily rated workers with seven years continuous service must be regularized under SRO 64 of 1994, rejecting arbitrary classification as casual labour.

CAT Jammu holds that uninterrupted service on a sanctioned post creates enforceable rights under Articles 14 and 16, directing regularization from date of officiation.