High Court Allows Daily Wagers' Regularization in Employment Dispute — Classification Found Arbitrary. Court Quashes State's Refusal to Regularize Services of Daily Wagers Appointed Post 27.03.2000, Violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved multiple writ petitions filed by daily wage workers against the State of Maharashtra and municipal corporations, challenging the refusal to regularize their services. The petitioners, who had been working for 15 to 20 years, sought regularization based on resolutions passed by their respective municipal corporations. The State rejected these proposals citing a government resolution that only allowed regularization for daily wagers appointed between 11.03.1993 and 27.03.2000. The petitioners argued that this classification was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it denied them equal treatment despite their long service. The court analyzed the legal principles surrounding regularization, referencing several Supreme Court judgments, including Uma Devi and others, which distinguished between illegal and irregular appointments. The court found that the petitioners' long-standing service and the essential nature of their work warranted regularization. Ultimately, the court quashed the State's refusal and directed the regularization of the petitioners' services, emphasizing the need for fair employment practices in government institutions.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Discrimination in Employment - Arbitrary Classification - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The refusal to regularize services of daily wagers appointed after 27.03.2000 while regularizing those appointed before is arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking intelligible differentia. The court held that such classification violates the principle of equality before law (Paras 16-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the refusal to regularize the services of daily wagers appointed after 27.03.2000 was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the State's refusal to regularize the petitioners' services, and directed the State to grant approval for regularization within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Article 14
  • regularization of services
  • discrimination
  • daily wagers
  • government employment
  • arbitrary classification
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (11) 50

Writ Petition No. 4732 of 2023, 11521 of 2022, 7065 of 2023, 7063 of 2023, 7064 of 2023, 7062 of 2023

2026-11-03

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Abasaheb D. Shinde

Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope, Mr. Parag V. Barde, Mr. V. M. Kagne, Mr. R. K. Ingole, Mr. S. S. Bora

Hussain Khan Peerkhan Pathan, Sumedh s/o Murlidhar Dhavle, Surendra s/o Namdeo Hanmante, others

The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner, Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, Parbhani Municipal Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the refusal to regularize daily wage workers' services.

Remedy Sought

Regularization of services of daily wage workers.

Filing Reason

Refusal by the State to approve regularization proposals from municipal corporations.

Previous Decisions

Previous resolutions by municipal corporations to regularize services were suspended by the State.

Issues

Arbitrary classification in employment regularization Discrimination against daily wage workers

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the classification based on appointment dates was arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondent supported the refusal citing financial implications and adherence to the Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the refusal to regularize the services of daily wagers appointed after 27.03.2000 was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The refusal to regularize services of daily wagers appointed after 27.03.2000 while regularizing those appointed before is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no rational behind the classification made by Respondent No. 1 between the employees appointed prior to 27.03.2000 and those who are appointed thereafter.

Procedural History

The writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the State refusing regularization.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Customs Classification Dispute — Multi-Functional Machines Classified Under Specific Heading. The court determined that the imported Multi-Functional Machines predominantly perform printing functions and should be cla...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Arbitration Petition Under Section 14 of Limitation Act. Time spent in earlier proceeding before court lacking jurisdiction excluded, delay of 144 days condoned.