Authorities must verify parity claims and extend temporary status and regularisation benefits to similarly situated casual labourers.

The applicants were initially engaged as substitutes/casual labourers in Group ‘D’ posts in the Traffic (Operating) Department of the North Eastern Railway.

They claimed to have worked for 157 and 193 days respectively and asserted that their names were entered in the Live Casual Labour Register.

They alleged that similarly placed and allegedly junior casual labourers, including Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta, had been granted temporary status and subsequently regularised, whereas their claims had been ignored.

The applicants relied on earlier proceedings in O.A. No. 63/1996 and connected matters, in which the Tribunal had directed reconsideration of eligible casual labourers for regularisation, subject to verification of service particulars and availability of vacancies, while directing that fresh faces or juniors should not receive preference.

The respondents disputed the applicants’ entitlement to age relaxation and stated that their cases were subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions and the screening notification.

During the proceedings, the applicants also relied on later decisions concerning regularisation and parity of similarly situated employees.

Whether the applicants were enrolled in the Live Casual Labour Register, had rendered the claimed period of service, and were otherwise similarly situated to the casual labourers who were allegedly granted temporary status and regularisation.

Whether the applicants were entitled to the benefit of temporary status and regularisation on the principle that similarly situated employees should be treated alike.

Whether the applicants’ claims were affected by the discrepancy between their originally disclosed ages and the subsequently amended ages, and whether they were entitled to age relaxation under the applicable Railway instructions.

Whether the respondents were required to verify the relevant historical service records and provide the applicants an opportunity to produce supporting evidence before deciding their claims.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicants relied on paragraph 2006(iii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume II, and Master Circular No. 48 concerning casual labourers, temporary status, and age relaxation.

The Tribunal applied the principle of equality and parity, namely that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive similar treatment.

It considered the principles governing regularisation in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, as clarified in M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 9 SCC 247, particularly the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the obligation to consider long-serving employees in appropriate cases.

It also referred to Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India, Writ-A No. 11282 of 2018, Ram Abhilash Singh v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025, Prem Singh v. Union of India, O.A. No. 158 of 2023, and P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, W.P. No. 6238 of 2020, for the principles concerning fair consideration of long-serving temporary or daily-wage employees and non-discrimination.

The Tribunal also distinguished Sanjeev Kumar v. Union of India, O.A. No. 740 of 2014, where regularisation was denied because temporary status and uninterrupted service had not been established.

The Tribunal did not conclusively determine that the applicants were entitled to regularisation.

Instead, it found that their specific assertions—enrolment in the Live Casual Labour Register, the number of days worked, and parity with Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta—required verification from departmental records.

Since the respondents were the custodians of the relevant records, the Tribunal held that they could not simply decline verification on the ground that the matter related to 1989.

Applying the principle of equal treatment, the Tribunal directed the respondents to ascertain whether the allegedly comparable employees had received temporary status and regularisation and whether the applicants’ cases were covered by the cited precedents and Railway instructions.

It also required verification of the applicants’ inconsistent age particulars and directed that they be allowed to produce evidence before any final determination was made.

The respondents were directed to verify: (i) the applicants’ enrolment in the Live Casual Labour Register; (ii) their total service; (iii) the temporary-status and service particulars of Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta; (iv) whether those employees had been regularised; (v) whether the applicants’ cases were covered by the relied-upon precedents; and (vi) the discrepancy in the applicants’ ages.

If, upon verification, the applicants were found to be similarly situated and covered by the applicable law, they were to be granted the same benefits of temporary status and regularisation.

The exercise was to be completed within five months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

All connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.