A benefit-of-doubt acquittal does not preclude reconsideration of regularization eligibility.

The applicant joined the Department of Telecommunications as a casual labourer on 1 November 1981 and was granted Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) status from 1 October 1989.

He claimed that, under DoT instructions dated 12 February 1999, he was eligible for regularization as a Regular Mazdoor from 1 April 1996, as other similarly placed workers had been.

His case was not processed while a criminal case was pending; he was acquitted on 30 October 2007.

The CGM, Mumbai, subsequently forwarded recommendations seeking his regularization, but no decision was communicated.

He continued as a TSM until retirement on 31 August 2022 and then applied to the Tribunal for retrospective regularization and consequential retiral benefits.

During the hearing, he stated that he would be satisfied with a direction requiring the respondents to reconsider his claim.

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s claim for regularization as a Regular Mazdoor, notwithstanding his acquittal on benefit of doubt and the absence of departmental proceedings.

Whether the applicant was entitled at this stage to an order granting retrospective regularization and consequential pensionary and other retiral benefits, or only to reconsideration of his claim.

The Tribunal referred to the DoT instructions dated 12 February 1999 as the basis on which the applicant claimed eligibility for regularization from 1 April 1996.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Its reasoning proceeded on the case-specific principles that a claim supported by the applicable instructions and comparable treatment should be considered on its merits, and that an acquittal on benefit of doubt did not, in the circumstances presented, justify leaving the claim undecided—particularly where no departmental proceedings had been instituted.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had remained in TSM service until retirement, that similarly placed workers had reportedly been regularized, and that the applicant’s case had been held back because of the criminal case.

After his acquittal, the CGM, Mumbai, repeatedly recommended his case, yet the competent authority had not decided his claim.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ reliance on the benefit-of-doubt acquittal as a sufficient basis, in these circumstances, to avoid considering the claim, especially since no departmental proceedings had been initiated.

However, rather than itself determining entitlement to regularization or awarding benefits, it directed the competent authority to examine the matter afresh.

If the claim is found acceptable, the respondents must provide the consequential benefits of regularization and other service benefits expeditiously.

The Tribunal did not itself grant retrospective regularization or pensionary benefits; there was no order as to costs.