Authorities must decide casual workers’ parity claims by reasoned order under applicable rules.

The seven applicants, who had worked as casual labourers for the respondents for several years, alleged that similarly situated workers were regularized while they were excluded. They sought comparable treatment and engagement, relying on their prior service and the respondents’ treatment of named workers.

Earlier proceedings concerning the applicants included a Tribunal judgment dated 6 July 2004, subsequent High Court proceedings, and a separate Tribunal judgment dated 28 March 2008.

The respondents disputed the applicants’ entitlement, contending, among other things, that the named workers had been appointed afresh by a separate recruiting authority and that the applicants fell outside the 1993 scheme.

During argument, the applicants’ counsel asked that the matter be disposed of in light of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regularization or parity with the workers named in their application, notwithstanding the applicable recruitment rules and the respondents’ objections.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine that entitlement on the merits, or instead direct the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims in light of Dharam Singh.

Regularization cannot ordinarily be claimed outside statutory recruitment rules; engagement on a need basis does not, by itself, create an automatic right to regularization against a post intended for direct recruitment.

Such recruitment must ordinarily follow a transparent and open selection process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal also observed that the Government may formulate regularization schemes to address the position of long-serving need-based, daily-rated, or casual workers, relying on Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K and Ors., 2003 (4) JKJ (HC) 93.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the applicants’ claims in light of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, decided 19 August 2025, but did not state or apply a specific substantive rule from that decision.

The Tribunal noted the general limits on regularization and the constitutional requirements for recruitment, but did not decide whether the applicants were in fact similarly situated to the workers who were regularized or whether they qualified under any applicable scheme.

Given the applicants’ limited request and the respondents’ willingness to accept appropriate directions without prejudice to their rights, the Tribunal considered that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the application pending.

It therefore left the merits open and required the respondents to assess the applicants’ claims, supporting documents, and parity assertion under the applicable rules and law, including in light of Dharam Singh.

It directed the respondents to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order on the applicants’ claims within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement and the absence of any legal impediment.

No costs were awarded; any interim direction was vacated.