Topic

Umadevi exception

3 articlesLatest March 2026
Umadevi Exception Reaffirmed | 30 Years of Continuous Service Entitles Daily Wage Employees to Regularization Despite Procedural Lapses : Karnataka HC
Case Law Analysis
|Karnataka High Court

Umadevi Exception Reaffirmed | 30 Years of Continuous Service Entitles Daily Wage Employees to Regularization Despite Procedural Lapses : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court ruled that daily wage employees with 30 years of continuous service in a sanctioned post are entitled to regularization under the Umadevi exception, even without formal recruitment. The State cannot deny relief after decades of reliance on the employee's work, reinforcing constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 for long-serving contractual workers.

Articles 14 & 16 | Long-Term Contractual Employees Recruited Transparently Have Constitutional Right to Regularisation : Delhi HC
Case Law Analysis
|Delhi High Court

Articles 14 & 16 | Long-Term Contractual Employees Recruited Transparently Have Constitutional Right to Regularisation : Delhi HC

Delhi High Court rules that contractual employees engaged through transparent public recruitment and serving over 15 years cannot be indefinitely kept on contractual terms. The Court mandates consideration for regularisation under Articles 14 and 16, rejecting the State's use of contractual labels to bypass constitutional guarantees for public employment.

25 Years of Continuous Casual Service Creates Legitimate Expectation of Regularization | Violation of Article 14 and Article 16 : Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench
Case Law Analysis
|Central Administrative Tribunal

25 Years of Continuous Casual Service Creates Legitimate Expectation of Regularization | Violation of Article 14 and Article 16 : Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, ruled that 25 years of uninterrupted casual service entitles an employee to regularization, as denying it while regularizing similarly situated workers constitutes arbitrary discrimination under Article 14. The judgment reinforces that constitutional equity demands uniform treatment for employees performing identical duties over decades, especially when they are barred by age from seeking other government employment.