Application for regularization dismissed as applicant not a government-funded casual labourer.

The applicant, M. Jabastian, claimed to have worked as a Casual Labourer in the Officers Mess of HQ CE, Chennai Zone, since February 2004, asserting that his salary was paid from non-official sources.

The respondents, however, contended that the applicant never worked as a Casual Labourer in the department as he was never paid from Government funds, noting he was employed in the Officers Mess which was run through contributions from member officers and was considered a Non-Government-Organization.

An experience certificate from HQ, CE, Chennai Zone, however, stated he worked as a Casual Labourer from February 2004 to October 2013.

The applicant filed WP No. 17813/2014, and the Madras High Court directed the respondents to allow him to continue as a daily wager and consider his case for regularization in accordance with law.

When this order was not complied with, he filed CP No. 2207 of 2015.

The High Court closed the contempt petition on November 16, 2017, observing that there was no positive direction to regularize his services, but clarified that he should be given admissible wages for the work rendered.

The applicant also filed several OAs (OA No. 262/2013, OA No. 1755/2013, OA No. 9/2014, OA No. 384/2018) all seeking regularization or continuance, which were either disposed of or rejected.

The impugned order of September 25, 2019, from the 2nd respondent, stated that the office had outsourced daily wage personnel and directed the applicant to approach the contractor.

The applicant was also considered for a regular MATE post in December 2014 but was not found eligible, scoring 40 marks against a cut-off of 45 for his OBC category.

Whether the impugned order dated September 25, 2019, passed by the 2nd respondent, should be quashed, and whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to follow the orders passed in W.P. No. 17813 of 2014 and O.A. No. 384 of 2018.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization as a Casual Labourer despite the High Court's observations and the respondents' contention that he was never paid from government funds.

Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in *Jaggo and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.* is applicable to the applicant's case.

The court primarily considered the principles of regularization for casual laborers as sought by the applicant based on previous court orders.

The court also applied the principles laid down by the Madras High Court regarding directions for consideration of regularization and payment of wages for work rendered, as stated in W.P. No. 17813/2014 and the contempt petition closing order.

The court analyzed the previous orders, noting that the High Court in WP No. 17813/2014 did not issue a positive direction to regularize the applicant's services, but rather directed consideration of his case for regularization and allowed him to continue as a daily wager.

The subsequent contempt petition clarified that he should receive wages for work rendered, but reiterated there was no positive direction for regularization.

The respondents consistently maintained that the applicant was never a Casual Labourer paid from government funds, but rather worked in an Officers Mess funded by member contributions, thus not covered by government regularization schemes.

The court found that the applicant was not covered by the 1993 Casual Labourers regularization scheme, as he was not a Casual Labourer within the department.

Regarding the *Jaggo* case cited by the applicant, the court distinguished it, noting that *Jaggo* concerned the quashing of termination orders for "Part Time Casual Labourers" who were directed to be taken back on duty, whereas the present applicant was continuing in his current position and terms, and there was no termination order to quash.

It concluded that there was no positive direction from the Madras High Court to regularize the applicant's service, only an entitlement to wages for service rendered.

The court also found the Supreme Court judgment in *Jaggo and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.* inapplicable, as the applicant's situation involved no termination order and he continued in his role under the same terms as in 2017.

The court therefore upheld the finding that the applicant was not entitled to regularization under the scheme for Casual Labourers.