Authorities must consider casual labourers’ claims under applicable schemes and release legitimately earned unpaid wages.

The applicants in the lead matter and the connected transfer applications claimed to have been engaged as casual labourers by the Tourism Department between 2007 and 2014 and to have worked at various tourist establishments and sites.

They challenged a notice dated 11 January 2016 inviting tenders for engagement of security guards through private security agencies, alleging that it threatened their continuation in service.

The High Court initially directed maintenance of status quo regarding the applicants’ position and directed the respondents to consider release of salary due in accordance with the rules.

The matters were subsequently transferred to the Tribunal.

The respondents stated that the relevant engagement records had been destroyed in the 2014 floods.

A departmental committee nevertheless found that 144 casual labourers had received wages up to February 2013 and that a list of 482 casual labourers had later been forwarded to the Administrative Department.

The respondents further stated that 342 casual labourers had been identified through Aadhaar-based biometric identification and skill profiling, and that redeployment under SRO 520 of 2017 had been proposed, subject to authorisation and financial sanction.

During hearing, the applicants did not press the challenge to the tender notice, submitting instead that their claims should be considered in accordance with law.

Whether the applicants were entitled to continuation as casual labourers notwithstanding the tender notice for hiring security guards through private agencies?

Whether the applicants were entitled to consideration of their claims for regularisation under any applicable scheme, policy, or binding judicial precedent?

Whether the applicants were entitled to release of legitimately earned but unpaid wages in accordance with law?

The Tribunal applied the principle that daily-rated or temporary employees do not acquire an automatic right to regularisation merely because of prolonged service; regularisation depends upon compliance with applicable recruitment rules, a valid selection process, and the existence of an enabling scheme or policy, as stated in State of Rajasthan v. Dayalal, (2011) 2 SCC 429.

The Tribunal also considered the applicants’ reliance on Jaggo v. Union of India, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana, U.T. of J&K v. Mohd. Ashraf Khan, LPA No. 121 of 2020, and State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail, 2013 (1) SLJ 73, for the proposition that eligible claims must receive lawful consideration and that the State should act as a model employer.

The applicable administrative framework included the Special Provisions Act, SRO-64 of 1994, Government Circular No. 09-GAD of 2013 directing discontinuance of engagements made in violation of law, and SRO 520 of 2017 concerning possible redeployment of casual labourers.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to regularisation on merits.

It noted that the challenge to the tender notice had become infructuous and was not pressed.

At the same time, the departmental material disclosed that several applicants had worked and had received wages, while the respondents’ records were incomplete because of the 2014 floods.

Since regularisation could not be granted solely on the basis of long or temporary service under State of Rajasthan v. Dayalal, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine each applicant’s claim against the governing scheme, policy, recruitment law, and the precedents relied upon by the applicants.

The Tribunal also preserved the applicants’ right to receive any wages that were proved to have been legitimately earned but remained unpaid.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants’ cases in light of their prayers, the applicable scheme or law, the cited judicial precedents, and all annexures forming part of the writ proceedings.

The decision was to be taken within twelve weeks from service of a certified copy of the order, and the applicants’ counsel was to be informed of the outcome.

Any legitimately earned unpaid wages were directed to be released in accordance with law and entitlement.