Casual Engagement Does Not Confer Vested Right to Regularization or Re-engagement Absent Sanctioned Posts

The eight applicants were engaged as casual laborers/daily wagers by the respondents (Customs/Excise Department) for two short spells in 1999 (05.03.1999 to 30.08.1999).

They were disengaged after completing less than six months of service due to lack of work.

In 1999, they filed O.A. No. 1985/1999, which was disposed of on 06.12.2000 with a direction to the respondents to consider their engagement if work was available in the Faridabad Office, in preference to juniors or outsiders.

A subsequent challenge in O.A. No. 1038/2003, alleging non-compliance, was dismissed in 2004 on grounds of res judicata and lack of evidence of available work.

After filing execution MAs and representations in 2022-2023, the applicants received a rejection order dated 05.04.2023, stating that casual engagement is now banned and no work exists.

The applicants then filed the present O.A. seeking re-engagement and regularization.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to re-engagement or regularization after a gap of over 24 years since their last engagement.

2. Whether the acts of the respondents were discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the current application is barred by the principles of res judicata and limitation.

The Tribunal relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which mandates that regularization cannot be claimed for appointments made de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment and that it was a "one-time measure" rather than an ongoing process.

It applied DoP&T OMs dated 07.06.1988 and 11.12.2006, which prohibit the recruitment of daily wagers for regular work and restrict regularization to those with 10 years of continuous service against sanctioned posts.

The Tribunal also applied the doctrine of res judicata, preventing the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.

The Court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the legal requirements for either re-engagement or regularization. Firstly, they had only worked for a very short duration (less than six months) and never acquired "temporary status".

Secondly, the respondents provided evidence that engagement of casual laborers was banned via departmental circulars in 2002, 2004, and 2005, and that no work was available in the designated Faridabad office.

Regarding the claim of discrimination, the Tribunal noted that the applicants provided no concrete evidence of "juniors" being hired in their place, nor did they prove parity with the case of Trilok Chand, whose specific service conditions were not detailed.

The Court observed that the matter had already been adjudicated in 2004 (O.A. No. 1038/2003), making the present plea a "stale claim" that cannot be revived through repeated representations.

The Tribunal held that the claim was barred by res judicata as the same relief on the same factual foundation had been previously rejected.

The prayer to declare the order dated 05.04.2023 illegal was rejected, and no directions for re-engagement were issued.