Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court

"Laudable intent of the judgment [in Uma Devi] 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," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that casual labourers who have rendered decades of continuous service are entitled to be considered for regularization, even if they were initially labeled as "part-time" workers.

A bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the long-term engagement of such workers, spanning over 30 years, conclusively proves that the nature of their work was essential and not merely temporary or sporadic.

The dispute arose when the Union of India challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur, which had directed the Department to grant temporary status and consider the respondents for regularization. The respondents were engaged as Group-D daily wagers in 1992, but the Department contended they were merely part-time workers engaged for a few hours daily and were therefore ineligible under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993.

The primary question before the court was whether casual workers labeled as "part-time" can be directed to be regularized under the 1993 Scheme after rendering over 30 years of service. The court also examined whether employees who had voluntarily left their services years prior to the adjudication could still claim the benefit of retrospective regularization.

Scope of the 1993 Regularization Scheme

The Court began by examining the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993," which mandates the conferment of temporary status on labourers who rendered continuous service of at least one year (206 or 240 days). The bench noted that internal departmental communications from 2014 and 2015 explicitly recorded that the respondents had been working since 1992 and recommended their permanent appointment, contradicting the Department's later stance.

Labels Of 'Part-Time' Versus Reality Of Service

The Court rejected the Department's argument that the respondents were ineligible for regularization because they were "part-time" workers. Referring to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the bench emphasized that courts must look beyond surface labels and consider the realities of employment, such as continuous long-term service and the indispensable nature of the duties performed.

Court Rejects Narrow Interpretation of Precedents

Addressing the Department's reliance on the landmark Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) ruling, the High Court observed that the judgment was intended to prevent "backdoor entries," not to penalize employees who have served the State for decades. The bench noted that the Department's attempt to use Uma Devi to reject claims of long-serving irregular (but not illegal) employees amounted to "weaponizing" the judgment against the very workers it sought to protect in specific contexts.

"The decision in Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State."

Thirty Years Of Service Proves Permanent Need

The bench highlighted that two of the respondents had continued in service for over 30 years, a fact that remains undisputed. The Court reasoned that such an extensive duration of service indicates that the Department fundamentally requires their labor and that the tasks performed were akin to those associated with sanctioned posts.

Procedural Formalities Cannot Deny Substantive Rights

Citing Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, the Court held that procedural formalities or the absence of a "full-time" label at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights accrued through decades of service. The bench found that the respondents had completed the required number of working days under the 1993 Scheme, and since their initial engagement was not "illegal," they were entitled to the benefit of the policy.

Distinction Between Active and Former Employees

The Court made a crucial distinction regarding two respondents who had left the Department in 2009. It held that regularization is fundamentally linked to ongoing employment and is not a matter of right once the employer-employee relationship has ended. While these former employees were entitled to benefits accrued during their actual tenure until 2009, they could not claim regularization thereafter.

"Once a person has resigned or left, the claim for regularization usually becomes infructuous as the relationship between employer and employee ends."

Final Directions of the Court

The High Court ultimately dismissed the Union's petition regarding the two active employees, upholding the CAT's order for their regularization. For the two respondents who left in 2009, the Court partly allowed the petition, confining their benefits strictly to the period they actually worked.

The ruling reinforces the principle that long-term continuous service transforms the character of casual employment, necessitating a humane and fair approach to regularization. It clarifies that the Uma Devi precedent cannot be used as a blanket shield by government departments to deny the legitimate expectations of workers who have dedicated their entire careers to public service.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026