Rajasthan HC Orders Regularisation for Driver Who Served 28 Years as a ‘Daily Wager’

The courtroom added that the State is predicted to behave promptly and to not permit its officers to stay in a state of inaction, thereby compelling staff to strategy the courtroom for enforcement of their authorized rights.

3-decade lengthy battle

• The petitioner, Mohd Sadik, was initially appointed as a driver on June 26, 1997.
• His providers have been terminated in August 2000, however he was later reinstated with continuity of service by the labour courtroom in 2009, a call upheld by the excessive courtroom in 2011.
• Regardless of rejoining in 2012 and serving till his superannuation on July 31, 2025, the state refused to regularise his providers.
• The state’s major defence was primarily based on a 2009 notification and the landmark Supreme Courtroom ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, arguing that the appellant had not accomplished the required 10 years of service by the required closing date of April 10, 2006.
• A single choose had beforehand dismissed the plea in April 2025, agreeing with the state’s place
• The petitioner challenged this order earlier than the division bench.

Petitioner’s case

• Showing for the petitioner, advocate M F Baig argued that the prisoner had accomplished 28 years of service, and within the judgment of Uma Devi, the apex courtroom held that any worker who has accomplished 10 years of service within the institution can be thought-about for regularisation.
• He additional submitted that in 2015, a emptiness for a driver was obtainable, and at the moment, he had accomplished 18 years of service. However, his case for regularisation was arbitrarily rejected.

‘28 years of blemish-free providers’

• Regularisation will not be a one-time measure. The state can’t proceed to depend upon Uma Devi to justify the engagement of staff for many years with out extending the good thing about common service.
• It’s pertinent to say that adjudication by the labour courtroom, which is upheld by this courtroom, doesn’t represent judicial interference, however is an adjudication made by the courtroom.
• The order of termination was put aside in a authorized continuing. Therefore, the petitioner has not labored underneath the interim order of this courtroom.
• A naked perusal of the award dated September 17, 2009, which is upheld by the courtroom, makes it clear that the providers of the appellant-writ petitioner shall be deemed to be steady.
• It’s an admitted case by the division(s) that the petitioner remained posted as a day by day wage employee from 1997 to 2000, and he constantly labored within the directorate workplace, and on completion of the age of 60 years, he was superannuated in 2025.
• The providers rendered by the petitioner have been completely blemish-free, and no criticism has ever been made towards him.

• Regardless of all this, non-consideration of the petitioner for regularisation by the division(s) displays perpetuation of a short lived standing of labor of a perennial nature, thereby attracting judicial scrutiny and warranting intervention of this courtroom.
• Such staff can’t be left to serve indefinitely on day by day wage, contractual, work cost, or part-time posts and not using a honest alternative of regularisation.
• Service jurisprudence additionally recognises one thing extra elementary, that the state can’t be allowed to revenue from its personal inaction when an establishment extracts work for many years after which pleads that there are not any sanctioned posts.
• The petitioner had rendered 28 years of steady and blemish-free providers from the date of the preliminary appointment.
• The precept rising from Jaggo v. Union of India and subsequent selections of the apex courtroom displays a transparent intention to safeguard the workers from exploitation.