The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India to regularise the services of Sandeep Kumar, a daily wage employee who had served the Department of Legal Affairs for more than eleven years. The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, delivering its judgment on October 10, 2025, held that denying regularisation in such cases amounts to “exploitation of dedicated service.”
Background
Sandeep Kumar’s father, a Group D employee with the Department of Law and Justice, passed away in 2005. Left without a source of income, his mother applied in 2007 for a compassionate appointment for her son. A year later, Sandeep was taken in as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) — but only as a daily wager.
According to Kumar, officials had verbally assured him that the job was on compassionate grounds and would be regularised later. For the next eleven years, he continued working, performing regular duties alongside permanent employees. But in 2019, he was abruptly terminated on the pretext of a new policy replacing daily wagers with contractual hires.
When his pleas to the department and even to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes failed, Kumar moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking either compassionate appointment or regularisation. The Tribunal, however, dismissed his plea in 2020, saying the prayers were “contradictory.”
Court’s Observations
The High Court took a different view. After carefully reading the CAT order and government communications, the Bench remarked that while the department cited a 2016 government circular (DoPT O.M.) to justify discontinuing daily wagers, it had itself repeatedly extended Kumar’s service for three more years after the circular’s issuance.
“The selective application of the policy,” the Court observed, “undermines the respondent’s own stand and offends the principle of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court noted that Kumar’s uninterrupted service from 2008 to 2019 could not be dismissed as casual or temporary. “Repeated extensions indicate the continuing necessity of his services,” the Bench said, emphasizing that the department had never questioned his conduct or performance.
Referring to recent Supreme Court precedents — Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), and State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) — the judges clarified that Umadevi cannot be used as a “weapon” to deny regularisation to employees whose appointments were not illegal but merely irregular.
The Court quoted from Jaggo:
“The appellants’ roles were essential and indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods warrant equitable treatment and regularisation.”
The Bench added that the Supreme Court has time and again distinguished between “illegal” appointments (made without sanctioned posts) and “irregular” ones (where procedure wasn’t fully followed). Workers like Kumar, who served over a decade in sanctioned roles, deserved to be regularised “as a one-time measure.”
The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the Tribunal’s 2020 order, terming it “contrary to settled legal principles.” Justice Madhu Jain, writing for the Bench, concluded that denying regularisation despite eleven years of satisfactory service “would amount to exploitation.”
The Court directed the Department of Legal Affairs to issue necessary orders for Kumar’s regularisation within eight weeks.
Case Title: Sh. Sandeep Kumar vs Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7006/2020 & CM APPL. 23906/2020
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain