Daily-Wage Engagement Cannot Be A Gateway To Public Employment: Patna HC

Shutting the door on backdoor regularisation claims after decades of temporary service, the Patna High Court ruled that daily-rated seasonal workers possess no fundamental or legal right to claim continuous re-engagement or permanent absorption in government departments. The Court held that issuing directions for absorption of casual workers appointed without an open competitive selection process severely violates the constitutional scheme of public employment.

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Justice Kumar Manish adjudicated upon a challenge against a departmental order rejecting the re-joining and regularization claims of seasonal canal workers who were disengaged after more than thirty years of casual service.

Court Observations and Directions

Examining the constitutional mandate governing public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the High Court emphasized that daily-wage engagement comes to an end when work ceases. The Court relied heavily on the landmark ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) ( "(2006) 4 SCC 1": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 148) to underline that casual employment cannot serve as a portal for regular service.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A class of employment which is only casual in nature cannot be allowed to be converted into a regular permanent appointment. Casual or daily-rated work cannot be a gateway for regular public employment. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance, unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme."

Reaffirming the legal position laid down in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumar Saxena ( "(1995) Supp (4) SCC 69": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 875), the Court noted that a daily wager does not hold a government post. Furthermore, citing the Division Bench judgment in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Ram Sevak Yadav & Ors. and the ruling in Kapil Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that granting exclusive preference to former daily wagers over open-market candidates violates equal opportunity principles.

The Court issued the following directions:

"for this, the petitioner is given liberty to file fresh representation for ventilating their grievances against payment of dues, if any, for actual work performed."

Background

The petitioners were initially engaged as Seasonal Workers (Meth) on a daily-wage basis from 1982/1983 under the Sone Canal Sub-Division of the Water Resources Department, Bihar. In February 2015, they were disengaged from work without formal notice or disciplinary inquiry, despite their names having been included in a departmental list prepared for regularization assessment.

Aggrieved by their disengagement, the petitioners approached the High Court in an earlier round of litigation, which directed the authorities to decide their representation. Consequently, the Chief Engineer passed a reasoned order dated June 12, 2018, rejecting their claims for re-joining and regularization on the ground that seasonal workers engaged on daily wages are not entitled to government absorption under applicable state resolutions.

Finding no illegality, procedural infirmity, or arbitrariness in the departmental rejection order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits while granting limited liberty regarding the verification of actual unpaid wages.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13613 of 2018
Case Title: Sheo Dayal Prasad and Anr v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, GA-2, Mr. Ranjan Prakash, A.C. to G.A.-2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 85