Casual laborers are entitled to temporary status on parity with similarly situated employees following judicially ordered reinstatement.

The applicants were engaged as daily wage Class-IV employees in 1984 and terminated on 31.12.1985

Industrial disputes (I.D. No. 128/1989 and 175/1991) resulted in awards dated 26.06.1996 and 22.03.1998, which declared the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement, and directed the respondents to consider the applicants for regularization

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad upheld the reinstatement award on 30.05.2013

Following contempt proceedings and further writ petitions, the applicants were reinstated in October 2014; however, they were not granted temporary status or regularization

The applicants filed the present O.A. seeking parity with similarly situated employees who received relief in Bhagwat Swaroop v. ICAR (O.A. No. 4273/2018)

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to temporary status and regularization under the DoP&T Scheme effective 01.09.1993

2. Whether the O.A. is barred by delay, laches, or Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to back wages and consequential benefits despite pending challenges to similar orders in the High Court

The Tribunal primarily applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Scheme dated 10.09.1993, which provides for the grant of temporary status and regularization to casual labourers

It followed the principle of parity as established in Bhagwat Swaroop v. ICAR (O.A. 4273/2018) and Kishan Chand v. ICAR (O.A. 531/2019), which granted relief to identically situated employees

Additionally, the Tribunal considered Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987 regarding the maintainability of applications based on plural causes of action

The Tribunal noted that since the Labour Court held the applicants' termination to be illegal, they are deemed to have been in continuous service since 1984, making them eligible for the 1993 DoP&T Scheme

The respondents’ contention regarding delay and laches was rejected because the applicants had been continuously litigating their grievances across various forums

The Tribunal found the applicants to be identically situated to those in the Bhagwat Swaroop case

However, it acknowledged that the Bhagwat Swaroop judgment is currently under challenge in the Delhi High Court (W.P. (C) No. 16884/2024), where the direction for back wages has been stayed while the grant of temporary status remains subject to the final outcome

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicants deserve the same conditional relief to maintain judicial parity

The respondents were ordered to consider the grant of consequential benefits and pay fixation within two months

The holding regarding back wages was deferred, to be considered only after final adjudication by the Hon’ble High Courts

No order as to costs was made