Court expands definition of "irregular appointments," emphasizing workers performing perennial, essential duties deserve regularization, overruling Union’s refusal based on policy and financial grounds.
In a landmark judgment dated April 28, 2026, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das De, delivered a decisive ruling in the case ofNi Union of India v. Andaman Sarvajanik Niram Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh. The Court upheld the entitlement of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) engaged by the Andaman & Nicobar (A&N) Administration to regularization under the "Andaman & Nicobar Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) (Engagement and Regularization) Scheme, 2023," directing the Union of India (UoI) to accord approval within 90 days.
The litigation traces back to a writ petition filed in 2018 seeking implementation of an Office Memorandum (OM) dated June 7, 1988, which mandated payment of 1/30th pay of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance to DRMs performing work equivalent to regular employees. Earlier litigation culminated in a 2022 Division Bench judgment that recognized benefits to DRMs and mandated framing of a regularization scheme by the A&N Administration within three months. Despite this, the Union of India declined concurrence to the 2023 Scheme on grounds of policy discretion, financial burden, and purported violation of Supreme Court precedents, notably Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the earlier Division Bench judgment is binding on the A&N Administration and the Union, especially since the Union facilitated partial compliance by releasing Rs. 300 crore towards wages during contempt proceedings. The Court clarified that the policy limitations outlined in Umadevi (3) are not exhaustive and recent Supreme Court judgments, including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Gaziabad (2025), and Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025), have expanded the scope of regularization to include employees engaged against sanctioned posts or functions for a substantial time in perennial work integral to the employer’s functioning.
Addressing the issue of writ jurisdiction over policy decisions, the Court observed that while normally courts refrain from interfering with policy, such restraint yields when fundamental rights, equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution, and fairness in labor practices are at stake. The Court emphasized that financial implications alone cannot cloak a decision as a pure policy matter immune from judicial scrutiny.
The 2023 Scheme was scrutinized and found to incorporate eligibility criteria aligned with the expanded tests for irregular appointments. The Court directed that the Scheme be "read up" by inserting a proviso defining "irregular appointment" to explicitly include employees who possess prescribed qualifications, serve against sanctioned posts or functions, perform perennial work, and whose work is integral to the employer’s operations.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal, modified the Single Judge’s order, and mandated approval of the Scheme within 90 days, thereby affirming the rights of thousands of DRMs to regularization. The judgment signals judicial recognition of the evolving labor jurisprudence that balances constitutional mandates with administrative realities, protecting long-serving casual workers from exploitation and precarious employment.
Bottom line:-
The Court upheld the principle that casual workers engaged in work equivalent to regular employees for a substantial period are entitled to regularization, provided they meet certain conditions, including prescribed qualifications, engagement against sanctioned posts or functions, and performing work integral to the employer's functioning.
Statutory provision(s): Article 14, Article 226, Article 239, Article 240, Limitation Act 1963, Minimum Wages Act 1948, Department of Personnel & Training OM dated June 7, 1988 and October 7, 2020
---
This report highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the Court’s interpretation of labor law, constitutional principles, earlier Supreme Court precedents, and the administrative background leading to the approval of the 2023 regularization Scheme. It underscores the Court’s role in ensuring equality and fairness for casual workers performing essential governmental functions.
