As per case facts, the petitioner, initially a casual labourer since 1989, was later placed on a time-scale in 2008 but was not regularized despite having worked for over 30 ... years in a perennial nature of work and possessing the requisite qualifications. The respondents cited the non-fulfillment of a 5-year service period by a specific cut-off date and the absence of sanctioned posts for non-regularization. The question arose whether denying regularization to a long-serving employee, whose work is perennial and appointment irregular but not illegal, is arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights, especially given statutory provisions and previous judicial pronouncements on regularization. Finally, the Court ruled that the respondents' actions were arbitrary and illegal. It held that continuing an employee for decades in perennial work without regularization amounts to unfair labor practice and that the government is deemed to have waived the eligibility conditions for regularization due to the petitioner's prolonged service. The Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services with effect from the date of completion of 5 years from their initial appointment, emphasizing that an irregular appointment for over 30 years entitles regularization, irrespective of sanctioned posts.