(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.1896/2015/U.Va.3, dated 17.07.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service and disburse all other service and monitory benefits with effect from 05.02.1999.)

1. The present writ petition has been seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent herein wherein the request of the petitioner to regularise his services as Night Watchman with effect from 05.02.1999 has been rejected.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. The petitioner herein was appointed as Night Watchman on 05.02.1999 on a daily wage basis in the third respondent office. According to the petitioner, he had registered himself before the Employment Exchange. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.06.2013 and contends that the petitioner is eligible to get an order of regularisation on completion of 10 years of service.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a similarly placed person by name A.Jebaraj Solomon who was appointed on 20.08.2005 in the same department was regularised under G.O.Ms.No.58 Rural Welfare and Panchayat Raj Department dated 20.06.2013 by relaxing the age and not been sponsored through Employment Exchange.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner is working in the department for more than 25 years as a daily wage on full time basis and therefore, his services have to be regularized. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) especially paragraph Nos.26 and 27 of the said judgment. He also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 144 ( Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ) in support of his contentions.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed only on a daily wage basis and therefore, he is only a casual employee and not entitled to any regularisation. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 (State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others) and another judgment reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 ( State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department and another Vs. A.Singamuthu) and contended that a casual employee would not be entitled to seek regularisation.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the employees should have completed 10 years of service on 01.01.2006. However, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of services as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said Government Order is not applicable to the writ petitioner. He further submitted that G.O.(Ms).No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013 is a clarificatory Government Order for G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. Therefore, under both the Government Orders, the petitioner is not eligible to get any regularisation. According to him, the petitioner was appointed without being called through Employment Exchange or following any selection process. The petitioner's appointment is a backdoor entry and regularisation can be granted only strictly in accordance with any Government Order that is applicable to the writ petitioner.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has not been covered under any one of the Government order, would not be entitled to get any regularisation. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition.

8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

9. A perusal of the appointment order of the writ petitioner dated 05.02.1999 reveals that the petitioner has been appointed as a temporary Night Watchman on daily wage basis. There is no reference whatsoever that it is a part time employment. The petitioner claims benefits of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. However, for claiming any benefit under the said Government Order, the petitioner should have completed 10 years of temporary service as on 01.01.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 10 years as on the said date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim benefit under the above said Government Order.

10. The petitioner is working as a Night Watchman continuously from the year 1999 onwards for more than 25 years. However, the case of the petitioner is not governed by any Government Order governing regularisation of employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 is held as follows:

               26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

               27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

11. One Jebaraj Solomon who was appointed on a daily wage basis on 20.08.2005 in the same department was granted regularisation by way of G.O.Ms.No.58 Rural Welfare and Panchayat Raj Department dated 20.06.2013. In the said case, the employee has not even completed 10 yeas of service when regularisation was granted by way of Government Order. In fact, the said Jebaraj Solomon had been appointed 6 years after the appointment of the writ petitioner. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be discriminated and considering the fact that the petitioner has already put in more than 25 years of service, his service have to be regularised.

12. The petitioner has completed 10 years of service in the year 2009. The similarly placed person has been granted regularisation from 20.06.2013 onwards as cited supra. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's service could also be regularised from 1st July 2013. The petitioner is about to retire in March 2026.

(D).Conclusion:

13. In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders.

               a).The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside.

               b) The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 01.07.2013 with monetary benefits from the date of the orders impugned in the writ petition namely from 17.07.2017.

               c) The pensionary service of the writ petitioner shall be calculated from 01.07.2013. However, the monetary benefit shall be released to the petitioner from 17.07.2017.

               d) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.