A temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary hand while the work continues pending regular recruitment.

The applicant was repeatedly engaged by the Department of Posts as an outsider/daily-wage Helper to Electrician (MTS), which he claimed commenced in 2011 and continued for over ten years against a sanctioned post.

The respondents admitted repeated engagement, but maintained that it was purely temporary, monthly, need-based and intermittent, with no appointment order, recruitment process, service record or regular appointment.

The applicant relied on departmental certificates, working reports and wage documents to establish continuity of service and performance of essential duties, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents discontinued his engagement with effect from 22.03.2022, although they denied any formal or oral termination and characterised the cessation as a routine break in a temporary engagement.

Thereafter, communication dated 05.04.2022 invited willingness from eligible departmental MTS/GDS employees to perform the duties of Helper to Electrician pending regular filling of the post.

The applicant challenged the discontinuation and the proposed replacement, relying principally on *Hargurpartap Singh v. State of Punjab*, and also sought regularization under *State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi*, *Union of India v. M.L. Kesari* and *Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand*.

Whether discontinuing the applicant’s temporary/daily-wage engagement and proposing to engage a departmental GDS/MTS employee for substantially the same work amounted to impermissible replacement of one temporary arrangement by another.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regularization on the basis of long service against a sanctioned post and alleged possession of the requisite qualifications.

Whether the applicant was entitled to re-engagement and continuation until appointment of a regularly selected incumbent.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was maintainable.

Relying on *Jaggo v. Union of India*, 2024 INSC 1034, and the earlier principle in *Hargurpartap Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2007) 13 SCC 292, it held that a temporary or daily-wage employee may not ordinarily be replaced by another temporary or contractual employee performing the same work; the employer remains free to make a regular appointment in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.

Under *State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi*, (2006) 4 SCC 1, regularization cannot be used as an alternative mode of recruitment, although a one-time consideration may arise for employees irregularly appointed against sanctioned posts, possessing the requisite qualifications and having completed more than ten years of service without interim protection.

*Union of India v. M.L. Kesari*, (2010) 9 SCC 247, clarified that this exception applies only where the initial appointment was irregular, made by a competent authority against a sanctioned vacancy, and not wholly illegal or dehors the constitutional recruitment scheme.

The Tribunal also treated the right against arbitrary replacement and the right to regularization as distinct legal claims.

The respondents’ own pleadings and documents established that the applicant had repeatedly performed the duties of Helper to Electrician and that the same work continued after his discontinuation.

Although the respondents described the proposed engagement of GDS/MTS personnel as an internal departmental arrangement, they acknowledged that it was temporary and intended to meet departmental requirements until regular recruitment.

Its substance, therefore, was the substitution of the applicant by another temporary hand for substantially the same work, which was impermissible under *Jaggo* and *Hargurpartap Singh*.

However, the evidence did not establish that the applicant’s initial engagement followed any advertisement, selection process, appointment by a competent authority or other legally recognisable recruitment procedure.

His engagement was consequently treated as a casual/daily-wage engagement rather than an irregular appointment falling within the limited *Uma Devi–M.L. Kesari* exception.

Long service, payment of minimum wages and the existence of a sanctioned post could not, by themselves, create an enforceable right to regularization.

The communication dated 05.04.2022 was quashed to the extent that it contemplated replacing the applicant with another temporary or stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment.

The respondents were directed to re-engage the applicant as a daily-wage/outsider Helper to Electrician on the same terms and conditions applicable immediately before 22.03.2022, within eight weeks of receiving the certified order.

The engagement was to continue until the post was filled by a regularly selected incumbent or otherwise ended in accordance with law; this direction did not confer any right to regularization or permanence.

The claim for regularization was rejected, and any wages lawfully due for the period actually worked were directed to be released after verification and adjustment of amounts already paid.

There was no order as to costs.