Casual laborers cannot claim regularization absent sanctioned posts, regular recruitment procedures, and existing functional establishments.

The applicants were engaged as casual labourers/daily wagers at Military Farm, Jammu, for over ten years.

They sought regularization of their services based on their long tenure, inclusion in the seniority list dated 23.02.2017, and parity with 56 similarly situated employees regularized in January 2017, some of whom were allegedly junior or ineligible.

The respondents opposed the application, stating that the applicants were not appointed against sanctioned posts through a regular recruitment process (advertisement or employment exchange).

Crucially, the respondents highlighted a policy decision by the Government of India dated 20.07.2017 to close all 39 Military Farms.

1. Whether casual labourers engaged without a regular recruitment process against non-sanctioned posts possess a legal right to regularization based on long service.

2. Whether the principle of "negative equality" under Article 14 can be invoked to claim regularization on parity with others whose regularization is under departmental scrutiny.

3. Whether a direction for regularization can be issued when the department/establishment itself is being closed as a matter of policy.

The court primarily applied the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which established that public employment must follow the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16; paragraph 44 of the said judgment allows only a one-time regularization for irregularly (not illegally) appointed persons who worked for 10+ years against sanctioned posts.

The doctrine of "Positive Equality," noting that Article 14 does not envisage "Negative Equality"—meaning an illegality committed in favor of one person cannot be claimed as a right by another.

The court also cited Kailash Singh Adhikari v. Union of India regarding the dismissal of claims following the closure of Military Farms.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to satisfy the criteria in Uma Devi because they were not engaged against sanctioned posts nor through an open competitive process.

The court reasoned that long service alone does not create a right to regularization, as bypassing recruitment rules would prejudice other eligible candidates.

Regarding the claim of parity, the Tribunal held that even if the 2017 regularization of others was irregular, the court cannot order the repetition of such an illegality.

Finally, the court determined that the policy decision to close all Military Farms rendered the relief of regularization impossible, as the Tribunal cannot compel the executive to maintain a "dying cadre" or create posts in a defunct establishment.

The case was held to be squarely covered by the previous decision in Mehar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (O.A. No. 219/2020) and no costs were ordered.