Over 30 years of service cannot be treated as temporary: Raj HC upholds regularisation of Customs casual workers

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that casual workers engaged by the Customs Department since 1992 cannot be denied regularisation merely because they were labelled part-time employees. A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal gave the ruling on 20 April 2026 while deciding a writ petition filed by the Union of India.

The dispute concerned four workers: Sumer Lal Chouhan, Laxmi Narain, Manohar Singh and Jethu Singh. They had been engaged as daily-wage Group-D employees at the Customs Division, Jodhpur since 1992. The four approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2005 seeking regularisation of their services. They also challenged a tender notice issued that year for outsourcing the work they were performing.

The Tribunal dismissed their claim in February 2006, holding that they did not meet the eligibility conditions under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of 1993. The workers challenged that dismissal before the High Court. In 2017 the High Court set aside the Tribunal order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. On 28 February 2019, the Tribunal allowed the original application, granted the workers temporary status under the 1993 Scheme and directed the Department to consider them for regularisation. That is the order the Union of India challenged in the present writ petition.

A crucial factor was the Department’s own internal correspondence. Letters dated 13 March 2014 and 28 April 2014 came from the Additional Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur. They recorded that all five workers had been engaged as “Casual Labours with temporary status” with effect from 1 September 1993. The same letters certified that “there was no irregularity noticed in engaging services of above Casual Labor”.

Counsel for the Union of India, Advocate Rajvendra Saraswat, submitted that the workers were part-time employees who worked only a few hours a day. He argued they were therefore not covered by the 1993 Scheme, which requires continuous service of at least 240 days — or 206 days for offices observing a five-day week. There were no muster rolls or pay slips to prove continuous engagement, he said, and payments had been made informally by officers and reimbursed later.

The Department also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006). That judgment held that courts cannot direct regularisation of persons not appointed through a lawful process. A representation by the workers had already been rejected by a reasoned order on 12 January 2015, the Department said. That rejection had attained finality since it was not challenged.

Advocate M.S. Rathore, appearing for the workers, pointed to the Department’s own 2014 communications placed on record before the Tribunal. He submitted that those letters categorically recorded the workers as having been engaged from 1 September 1993 as casual labourers with temporary status. Counsel argued that the 2017 High Court remand had directed a fresh decision on whether the workers were part-time daily wagers or entitled to temporary status. The Tribunal had correctly answered that question, he said.

The workers also relied on a more recent Supreme Court judgment, Jaggo vs Union of India (2024 INSC 1034). That ruling held that part-time workers performing essential duties on a continuous basis for years are entitled to be considered for regularisation.

The division bench found that the Department had never disputed the workers’ engagement, only the nature of that engagement. The Court noted that the Department’s letter of 28 April 2014 itself certified that “there was no irregularity noticed in engaging services of above Casual Labor”. That finding knocked out the principal bar Uma Devi places on regularisation — the illegality of the initial appointment.

The Court relied heavily on Jaggo. It was addressing the Department’s core “part-time” objection. It observed: “Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments.” In practical terms this meant the job title the Department had used did not decide the question; what mattered was the actual nature of service.

The Court also quoted Jaggo‘s warning that Uma Devi was being misapplied by government departments. Jaggo said the Supreme Court’s “laudable intent… is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees.” For the Customs Department, that meant Uma Devi could not be invoked as a shield. Its own officers had already confirmed there was no illegality in the engagements.

On the duration of service, the bench made a striking observation. It said the continuance of respondents Sumer Lal Chouhan and Laxmi Narain “from their engagement till date” was over 30 years. This, the Court held, “in itself indicates that the services rendered by the respondents… cannot be said… of a temporary nature.” Three decades of unbroken work proved that the Department needed the posts it had been labelling temporary.

The Court treated respondents Manohar Singh and Jethu Singh differently. Both had voluntarily left the Department in 2009. The bench held that regularisation is not a matter of right. Courts are reluctant to order retrospective regularisation of persons no longer in service. They would, however, be entitled to whatever benefits accrued from the Tribunal’s order for the period they actually worked — up to 2009 and no further.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in respect of Sumer Lal Chouhan and Laxmi Narain. That leaves the Tribunal’s direction to consider them for regularisation intact. It partly allowed the petition in respect of Manohar Singh and Jethu Singh. Their entitlement was confined to benefits accrued up to 2009, the year they left the Department. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case details