Noting 32 years of service without regularisation, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) expresses anguish and asserted that constitutional principles do not permit the State to exploit labour by keeping employees in a state of perpetual temporariness while extracting regular and continuous work. The Court held that the petitioner, having rendered long and continuous service while performing duties of a regular and perennial nature, is entitled to regularization, and the refusal of the respondents to consider such regularization withstands constitutional scrutiny.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that appointments made in flagrant violation of recruitment rules cannot be sustained merely on the basis of length of service. However, constitutional principles do not permit the State to exploit labour by keeping employees in a state of perpetual temporariness while extracting regular and continuous work.
The Bench found that the petitioner has rendered long and uninterrupted service, possesses the requisite qualifications, and has performed duties of a perennial and essential nature under the direct control of the respondents. At the same time, the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s engagement was tainted by fraud.
Thus, the Bench pointed out that the continued engagement of the petitioner without considering regularization reflects administrative arbitrariness and is contrary to the constitutional obligation of the State to act as a model employer. Accordingly, the Bench directed the respondents to undertake the exercise of regularizing the services of the petitioner against a sanctioned post.
Further, upon regularization, the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service and all consequential service benefits, including fixation of pay, seniority and pensionary benefits; and entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months, added the Bench.
Briefly, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and seeking directions to pay to the petitioner equal pay for equal work in regular pay scale of Class IV employee, who has been engaged on muster-roll daily wage basis since April, 1994 @ Rs.9/- per day and has completed services for more than three decades and has continuously discharged duties of a perennial and essential nature. The petitioner further seeks consequential service benefits, contending that the prolonged denial of regularization is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
Appearances:
Advocate C. P. Sharma, for the Appellant
AAAG Manaswita Nakhwaal and Kuldeep Singh Rathore, along with AAG Mahi Yadav, for the Respondent
