Court deems failure to regularize petitioner's long-term service arbitrary. Respondents ordered to act promptly.

The court found the failure to regularize the petitioner's services, after nearly fifteen years of continuous work, compared to others with similar tenure, to be arbitrary and a violation of human rights. The court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on internal communication from 2007 within a specified time frame, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's case. The writ petition was disposed of with this directive.

---

---

Issues:
Regularization of service of a petitioner who has worked for the Income Tax department for over 14 years, but whose services have not been regularized compared to others with similar tenure.

Analysis:
The petitioner was engaged as a driver-cum-peon by the Deputy Director of Income Tax in 2000, and subsequently transferred to Belgaum when the office was relocated. The petitioner has been working continuously since then and has completed over 14 years of service. The petitioner's services were engaged on a contingent basis initially, but it evolved into a regular basis as indicated in internal communications. The Additional Director of Income Tax, Belgaum, forwarded names for regularization of service, including the petitioner, but only two out of four were regularized due to completing 10 years, while the petitioner had only eight years at that time.

The petitioner argues that not regularizing his services after 14 years would cause great hardship and is arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondent's counsel contends that since the engagement was on a contingent basis, there is no right for regularizing services, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for this purpose. Referring to an internal communication not pertaining to the petitioner is also raised as a point.

The court notes that the petitioner has been working for the respondent since 2000, with work being extracted in various capacities. The internal communication of 2007 regarding regularization of services of employees was significant. The court finds the failure to regularize the petitioner's services, especially after nearly fifteen years of service, when others in similar situations were regularized, to be arbitrary. Denying regularization at this stage is seen as a violation of human rights. Consequently, the court directs the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on the internal communication of 2007 within a specified time frame.

In conclusion, the court orders the respondents to take necessary actions regarding the regularization of the petitioner's services, emphasizing the importance of the internal communication from 2007. The writ petition is disposed of with this directive.

---