Daily-Rated Service Not a Shortcut to Regular Status: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has decisively ruled that prolonged daily-rated service in public employment does not automatically translate into a legal right for regular status, striking down an industrial award that attempted to antedate regularisation. In a significant clarification of service jurisprudence, the Court held that while certain pre-regularisation periods may count toward retiral benefits under specific schemes, they cannot retrospectively alter the legal character of casual engagement into regular government service.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Shail Jain presided over the petitions filed by the Director General of Works, CPWD. The Court was tasked with examining the legality of a 2007 Award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which had directed the CPWD to confer regular status on various workmen after just one year of their initial daily-rated engagement and to count 50% of their entire casual service for pensionary benefits.

Limits on Retrospective Regularisation and Judicial Reach

The Court observed that the Tribunal's direction to treat workmen as regular after one year of engagement lacked a legal basis. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. The requirement of a duly sanctioned vacant post is thus integral to the exception. Length of service, by itself, could not therefore furnish the legal basis for converting that initial engagement into regular Government service."

The Court further clarified that the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of 1993 only allows for 50% of service rendered under 'temporary status' to be counted, not the entire daily-rated period. The Court has following directions:

"(i) The direction in the impugned Award conferring regular status upon the workmen after one year of their initial daily-rated engagement is set aside. The dates of subsequent regularisation shall not be antedated in the absence of any legal provision authorising retrospective regularisation.

(ii) The direction to count 50% of the entire period of daily-rated service for retiral benefits is set aside.

(iii) In respect of a workman who had already been regularised before 10.09.1993, no earlier daily-rated service shall be counted for retiral benefits merely by virtue of the 1993 Scheme.

(iv) In respect of a workman who was in casual/daily-rated employment on 10.09.1993 and was subsequently regularised, the retiral benefits shall be re-computed by taking into account 50% of the service rendered from 10.09.1993 until the date of regularisation, to the extent such service is reckonable under the 1993 Scheme. This direction shall operate on the basis of the service record of the concerned workman and shall not be construed as treating every period of daily-rated service as service under temporary status or as dispensing with the conditions of the 1993 Scheme. Any independent claim under Rule 14, where specifically invoked, shall be dealt with in accordance with the conditions applicable thereto.

(v) The consequential retiral benefits shall be computed in accordance with law. After considering the other retiral benefits already paid in respect of the relevant period, including payments made pursuant to the Office Memoranda dated 20.11.2023 and 10.05.2024, wherever applicable.

(vi) Nothing contained herein shall confer regular status upon any workman from an anterior date. Completion of 240 days or prolonged daily-rated service, by itself, shall neither confer regular status nor justify retrospective regularisation.

(vii) The aforesaid directions are issued as a special measure in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases and are confined to the workmen who are parties to these proceedings. They shall not be understood as laying down any general entitlement to such benefit in other cases.

(viii) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(ix) The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

Background

The dispute involved CPWD workers engaged on a daily-rated basis who were regularised after several years. The workmen contended that their pre-regularisation service should count for pensionary benefits, citing continuous service under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The CPWD argued that regularisation was prospective and contingent on sanctioned vacancies. The Tribunal had relied on Railway rules and Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, 1950 to grant relief.

In its analysis, the High Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ( "[2006 (4) SCC 1]": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 148) to emphasize that regular recruitment is the rule. It also referred to Gangadhar Pillai Vs Siemens Ltd ( "(2007) 1 SCC 533": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 703) to establish that 240 days of work does not mandate permanent status. While the Court set aside the blanket regularisation, it moulded the relief as a "special measure" due to the 19-year pendency of the case, allowing for a re-computation of benefits specifically under the 1993 Scheme for those employed as of September 10, 1993.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3979/2007 and W.P.(C) 3986/2007
Case Title: Director General Works CPWD V. The Gen.Sec.All India CPWD Emp
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Poonam Shukla and Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Ms. Nidhi Garg, Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Aakriti Kapila and Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Advs.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 5703