workers have already been quoted by us. Now, the respondents have added one more condition to those conditions to make the workers eligible for regulation, this is, they should have continuous service. We think, the said stipulation is not only irrational but, not authorized by Annexure A1. A person needs to have only 500 days service in a span of ten years between 1/1/2001 and 1/1/2011. It means, in the year 2001 a person can have 250 days service and if he completes 250 days service in 2010, he will be eligible for regularization. But according to the respondents, this 500 days service should be staggered throughout the ten years period. That means, there should be a few days service in every year. We think, the said stipulation is unjustified having regard to the nature of employment of the persons like the applicants. They are called only as and when work is available. So, if a person did not work during a year,, it cannot be said that there is break of service for him. Suppose, there was work and he was called and he did not come for work-then it can be said that there is break of service for an HR worker. The respondents do not have any such case in the reply statement. So, on the ground that during certain years the applicants did not work for a day, regularization cannot be denied to them provided they satisfied the four conditions contained in Annexure A1. Admittedly, the applicants have satisfied all those conditions.”
