Belated challenges to the date of temporary status for project casual labor are barred by laches.

The applicant was engaged as casual labor in a Railway Electrification Project on 09.09.1980

He was subsequently granted temporary status effective from 01.01.1984

Seeking to advance the date of his temporary status to 09.01.1981 (based on the completion of 120 days of service), the applicant submitted a representation on 11.11.2015

Following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous round of litigation (OA 99/2016), the respondents issued a speaking order on 02.03.2016 rejecting the applicant's request

The applicant challenged this rejection, seeking a revision of all consequential benefits including pay, promotion, and retirement benefits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the conferment of temporary status upon completion of 120 days of service (09.01.1981) instead of 360 days (01.01.1984) under the extant Railway Board Circulars

2. Whether the applicant's claim for retrospective revision of temporary status, raised approximately 30 years after the cause of action arose, is sustainable in law

Para 2001 (1)(b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol. II, and the scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India

Railway Board letter No. E(NG) II/84/CL/41 dated 11.09.1986, establish that casual labor employed on projects ("project casual labour") are to be treated as temporary only upon the completion of 360 days of continuous employment

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for temporary status after 120 days of service contradicted the established legal framework for project casual labor, which requires 360 days of continuous employment as per the Inder Pal Yadav judgment and subsequent Railway Board circulars

The Tribunal addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the applicant was granted temporary status on 01.01.1984 but did not agitate the matter until 2014

The court held that this 30-year delay constituted a "much delayed reaction" that is not acceptable in law

The Tribunal determined that the applicant failed to establish a legal right to the relief sought and that the claim was barred by laches

It held that the applicant was not entitled to the advancement of his temporary status as the 360-day requirement for project casual labor was correctly applied

The court further held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of excessive delay and laches

No order as to costs was made