28 years, 1 job, zero security: Rajasthan High Court orders driver’s regularisation, says ‘state can’t profit from own inaction’

The court added that the State is expected to act promptly and not to allow its officials to remain in a state of inaction, thereby compelling employees to approach the court for enforcement of their legal rights.

3-decade long battle

• The petitioner, Mohd Sadik, was initially appointed as a driver on June 26, 1997.
• His services were terminated in August 2000, but he was later reinstated with continuity of service by the labour court in 2009, a decision upheld by the high court in 2011.
• Despite rejoining in 2012 and serving until his superannuation on July 31, 2025, the state refused to regularise his services.
• The state’s primary defence was based on a 2009 notification and the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, arguing that the appellant had not completed the required 10 years of service by the specified cut-off date of April 10, 2006.
• A single judge had previously dismissed the plea in April 2025, agreeing with the state’s position
• The petitioner challenged this order before the division bench.

Petitioner’s case

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate M F Baig argued that the prisoner had completed 28 years of service, and in the judgment of Uma Devi, the apex court held that any employee who has completed 10 years of service in the establishment would be considered for regularisation.
• He further submitted that in 2015, a vacancy for a driver was available, and at that time, he had completed 18 years of service. Nevertheless, his case for regularisation was arbitrarily rejected.

‘28 years of blemish-free services’

• Regularisation is not a one-time measure. The state cannot continue to rely upon Uma Devi to justify the engagement of employees for decades without extending the benefit of regular service.
• It is pertinent to mention that adjudication by the labour court, which is upheld by this court, does not constitute judicial interference, but is an adjudication made by the court.
• The order of termination was set aside in a legal proceeding. Hence, the petitioner has not worked under the interim order of this court.
• A bare perusal of the award dated September 17, 2009, which is upheld by the court, makes it clear that the services of the appellant-writ petitioner shall be deemed to be continuous.
• It is an admitted case by the department(s) that the petitioner remained posted as a daily wage worker from 1997 to 2000, and he continuously worked in the directorate office, and on completion of the age of 60 years, he was superannuated in 2025.
• The services rendered by the petitioner have been entirely blemish-free, and no complaint has ever been made against him.

• Despite all this, non-consideration of the petitioner for regularisation by the department(s) reflects perpetuation of a temporary status of work of a perennial nature, thereby attracting judicial scrutiny and warranting intervention of this court.
• Such employees cannot be left to serve indefinitely on daily wage, contractual, work charge, or part-time posts without a fair opportunity of regularisation.
• Service jurisprudence also recognises something more fundamental, that the state cannot be allowed to profit from its own inaction when an institution extracts work for decades and then pleads that there are no sanctioned posts.
• The petitioner had rendered 28 years of continuous and blemish-free services from the date of the initial appointment.
• The principle emerging from Jaggo v. Union of India and subsequent decisions of the apex court reflects a clear intention to safeguard the employees from exploitation.