Facts
The applicants, consisting of the All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union and seven individual applicants (Nos. 2 to 8), filed an Original Application seeking re-engagement and regularization of services
Source reference: p. 2The individual applicants were initially engaged in the respondents' department as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants between 2000 and 2004
Source reference: p. 2They were orally disengaged by the respondents between October and December 2011 without any stated reason or order
Source reference: p. 2Aggrieved by this, the Union submitted a representation to the respondents on January 2, 2012, requesting re-engagement and regularization, citing various case laws and government circulars
Source reference: p. 2Some applicants claim to have completed over 10 years of service and sought regularization based on Supreme Court judgments
Source reference: p. 2While other casual laborers had been regularized after due process, and relief granted by an Industrial Tribunal in an identical situation was extended to those applicants, the present applicants were deprived of such relief due to non-filing of a case
Source reference: p. 2-3The respondents contended that the applicants were never engaged as regular casual laborers, did not specify their period of engagement, and produced no documents proving payment
Source reference: p. 3They argued that the applicants were engaged for seasonal work and had no right to regularization, citing the Uma Devi judgment
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether the applicants, having been orally disengaged after serving as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants from 2000-2004, are entitled to re-engagement and regularization of their services
Source reference: p. 2Whether the respondents have a duty to consider the representation filed by the applicants' Union regarding their grievance for re-engagement and regularization
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
The court considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding regularization of services, specifically referencing “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others V. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806,” which generally holds that daily paid government employees do not have a right to regularization
Source reference: p. 2, 3It also noted the precedents from “Jaggo v. Union of India and others, decided on 20.12.2024 Civil Appeal No. 5580 of 2024 2025 (1) ESC 12 7 [SC]” and “Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024, decided on 31.01.2025,” which were relied upon by the applicants for regularization
Source reference: p. 2The court identified a circular dated January 24, 2007, issued by the Archaeological Survey of India, which directed consideration of cases in light of the Uma Devi judgment, stating that casual laborers have no right to regularization
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court noted that the applicants claimed engagement as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants between 2000 and 2004 and oral disengagement in late 2011
Source reference: p. 4However, it found no record to establish their status, engagement, or the number of working days
Source reference: p. 4The applicants' Union raised a grievance via a representation dated January 2, 2012, which remained undecided
Source reference: p. 4The respondents objected to regularization based on the Uma Devi judgment, asserting the applicants were never regularly engaged, and their work was seasonal
Source reference: p. 3, 4Despite the respondents' claims of non-availability of records, the court acknowledged the applicants' contention that verification of service could be made through their own muster rolls from 2000 to 2011
Source reference: p. 5The Supplementary Affidavit of the applicants suggested the engagement of casual laborers against vacant Group ‘D’ posts, even though the applicants' names were not on a specific list from 1987-2005
Source reference: p. 5Given the pending representation and the disputed facts, the court found it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the grievance
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The O.A. was disposed of
The court directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants, as raised by the Union in their representation dated January 2, 2012, within three months from the date of receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 5, 6This consideration must be based on the available records and in light of the judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India and others and Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and a reasoned and speaking order must be passed
Source reference: p. 6No costs were awarded, and all pending MAs were deemed disposed of
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Original Application No. 1828 of 2012]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in