Casual laborers cannot claim regularization in closing establishments or in the absence of sanctioned vacancies.

The applicants were engaged as casual labourers/daily wagers in various Military Farms (Udhampur and Nowshera) under the Ministry of Defence between 1990 and 2005

They claimed continuous service ranging from 12 to 27 years and asserted that their names appeared in seniority rolls forwarded to higher authorities

The applicants sought regularization and "temporary status" based on a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM), citing parity with certain "juniors" regularized in 2017

Following directions from the High Court (transferred to the Tribunal), the respondents issued speaking orders on 10.12.2020 and 29.05.2021 rejecting the claims

The respondents justified the rejection on the grounds that the Military Farm Organization was being progressively closed by a Government policy decision, no sanctioned posts existed, and the applicants were not recruited through regular processes

1. Whether the rejection orders dated 10.12.2020 and 29.05.2021 were arbitrary or illegal given the impending closure of the Military Farm Organization

2. Whether long-term casual engagement entitles workers to regularization or temporary status under the OM dated 10.09.1993 in the absence of sanctioned vacancies

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity with other individuals regularized in 2017

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi regarding the limited scope for regularizing daily wagers and the necessity of sanctioned posts

It followed the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, which establishes the scheme for "temporary status" and regularization of casual labourers

The court further applied the doctrine of "negative equality," asserting that parity cannot be claimed to perpetuate an illegality

Additionally, the Tribunal relied on its own coordinate Bench precedent in OA No. 219/2020, which addressed identical facts regarding Military Farm closures

The Tribunal found these applications to be factually and legally indistinguishable from OA No. 219/2020

It reasoned that since the Military Farms were being closed as a policy decision, the cadre was "dying," and the Tribunal could not issue a mandamus to create posts or revive the organization

The court noted that the applicants were engaged on an intermittent, need-basis without advertisement or employment exchange sponsorship, thus lacking a legal right to regular appointment

Regarding parity, the court held that the 2017 regularization exercise cited by applicants was subject to administrative scrutiny (Court of Inquiry) and that even if irregularities occurred there, the applicants could not claim "negative equality" to benefit from a similar irregularity

The Tribunal concluded that the law does not compel the performance of an impossibility, and in the absence of vacancies and an ongoing establishment, the claim for absorption/regularization must fail

It held that the rejection orders were reasoned and lawful because the closure of the Military Farms and the lack of sanctioned vacancies precluded any scope for absorption

The applicants were not entitled to parity with the 2017 regularizations as equality cannot be claimed in illegality

No order as to costs was passed