Applicant entitled to regularization as casual labour due to similar circumstances and prior service.

The applicant, Ram Swaroop, was appointed as an Extra Departmental Messenger (EDM) in the Posts & Telecom Department on August 24, 1979.

After the Department's bifurcation, he joined the Department of Telegraph Office (DTO) on June 15, 1984.

A repatriation notice was issued on June 27, 1987, but the Tribunal, in OA No. 685 of 1987, allowed the applicant to continue until a policy decision or absorption in the Postal Branch.

He continued working in DTO and subsequently in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) after its creation on October 1, 2000.

In OA No. 425 of 2002, the Tribunal directed respondent no. 2 to consider the applicant's case for temporary status and regularization, similar to one Chotey Lal.

The applicant's working hours were increased from 5 to 8 per day via an order dated May 5, 2000.

Respondent no. 2 rejected the applicant's case for temporary status and regularization on January 29, 2015, on the grounds that he was an EDM on deputation, not a casual labor, and that regularization was impermissible post-Uma Devi.

The applicant retired on February 28, 2013.

The respondents later clarified that Chhotey Lal, with whom the applicant sought parity, initially worked as a messenger in the Telegraph Office, Barabanki, transferred to DoT on December 31, 1986, and was engaged as casual labour from January 1, 1998.

Whether the applicant's status changed from Extra Departmental Messenger (EDM) to casual labour with the increase in his working hours.

Whether the applicant is similarly situated to Chhotey Lal for the purpose of granting temporary status and regularization.

Whether the rejection of the applicant's case for temporary status and regularization, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi, was valid.

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity and non-discrimination, emphasizing that similarly situated individuals should receive similar treatment.

It also considered the directions given in its previous judgment in OA No. 425 of 2002, which directed consideration of the applicant's case for temporary status and regularization "as had been done in the case of Chhotey Lal".

Furthermore, the judgment referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs Uma Devi & Others, Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612 of 1999 [2006 (4) SCC Page I], regarding the regularization of irregular appointments, specifically highlighting the "one time measure" provision for those who worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.

The court analyzed the applicant's status, noting that despite being an EDM, his working hours were increased to 8 per day from May 5, 2000, which, in their opinion, meant he could no longer be considered an EDM but rather a casual labour.

This was further supported by the respondents' own letter dated September 24, 2001, which mentioned the conversion from ED to 8-hour casual labour on May 5, 2000.

Regarding parity with Chhotey Lal, the court found that the respondents' initial assertion that Chhotey Lal was "initially engaged in Telecom District - Barabanki w.e.f. 01.01.1998 as casual labour" was fundamentally at variance with their later affidavit, which stated that Chhotey Lal also initially worked as a messenger and was transferred to DoT, similar to the applicant.

Therefore, the court concluded that both Chhotey Lal and the applicant were similarly situated, making the respondent's decision to treat their cases differently an unlawful discrimination.

Finally, the court reasoned that the reliance on Uma Devi for rejecting the applicant's regularization was misplaced, as the applicant had been working since August 24, 1979, and was thus entitled to be considered under the "one time measure" for regularizing irregularly appointed persons who had completed ten years of service, as prescribed in Uma Devi.

The respondents are directed to treat the applicant's service as casual labour from May 5, 2000, confer temporary status upon him, and regularize his service, treating his case as similarly situated with Chhotey Lal's case.

Considering Chhotey Lal's regularization after 33 months of engagement as casual labour, the applicant's service shall also be regularized with effect from the date following the expiry of 33 months from May 5, 2000.

A supernumerary post shall be created if required, and all consequential benefits with arrears are to be paid within three months.

Parties shall bear their own costs.