Casual Employment: Regularization Not a Right; Requires Formal Status Conferment

The applicant, Sanjeev Kumar, was engaged as a Casual Labourer by the respondents on 04.11.1990 and claimed continuous service thereafter.

He asserted that he had completed 240 days of service and was thus entitled to Temporary Status and consequential regularization under the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions O.M. dated 10.09.1993.

He had previously filed O.A. No. 1440/2000, which resulted in directions to the respondents to examine his claim.

His case was rejected by the respondents on 01.12.2001, stating he had not completed 240 days as on 10.09.1993 and no junior was granted Temporary Status.

A subsequent Contempt Application No. 132/2002 was dismissed on 17.07.2002.

The applicant continued to work and submitted a representation dated 19.06.2013 seeking regularization.

He contended that vacancies in Group-D were filled in 2005, and 181 posts of Group-C (erstwhile Group-D) were notified on 23.05.2013, with 2/3rd reserved for Temporary Status Casual Labourers, but his claim was not considered.

The respondents contended that the applicant was a daily wages labourer engaged on a requirement basis, never granted Temporary Status, and had participated in a selection for the post of Syce as an open category candidate pursuant to notifications dated 23.05.2013 and 22.06.2013 but was not selected due to low merit.

They disputed his claim of continuous service and alleged the representation dated 19.06.2013 was fabricated.

1. Whether the applicant established a legal right to claim conferment of Temporary Status under the DOP&T O.M. dated 10.09.1993?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to consequential regularization against notified vacancies?

The court primarily applied the principles regarding regularization of daily wagers and casual employees, emphasizing that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right if appointments are made dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment and recruitment rules.

It referred to *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1*, which held that public employment must conform to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and courts cannot direct regularization in violation of recruitment rules.

It also cited *State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal*, which reiterated that daily wage employees have no vested right to regularization unless a statutory scheme specifically confers such a right and its conditions are strictly fulfilled.

The DOP&T O.M. dated 10.09.1993, providing for grant of Temporary Status and regularization to casual workers who completed 240 days of service, was also a central point of contention.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant failed to establish a legal right to Temporary Status or regularization.

It found that mere assertion of completing 240 days did not automatically confer Temporary Status, as such status required grant by a competent authority upon verification of eligibility conditions stipulated in the scheme.

Crucially, the applicant was never formally granted Temporary Status.

The respondents consistently denied such grant, maintaining he was engaged as a daily wages labourer on a requirement basis, not against a sanctioned post.

The certificate dated 12.03.2011 relied upon by the applicant pertained to a limited period and did not establish uninterrupted service from 1990.

Furthermore, the applicant subjected himself to the regular selection process for the post of Syce as an open category candidate and was not selected on merit, thus losing the ability to claim regularization "dehors the recruitment rules".

The Tribunal distinguished *Jaggo v. Union of India*, finding that in the present case, the claim of continuous engagement since 1990 was disputed, and the applicant had participated in open competitive selection, making the *Jaggo* precedent inapplicable due to the lack of clear and undisputed eligibility under the O.M. dated 10.09.1993.

The Tribunal also noted that the earlier O.A. No. 1440/2000 was complied with, and the contempt application dismissed, thus the issue could not be reopened without fresh legal rights.

The Original Application was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.

There was no order as to costs.