Casual laborers eligible for re-engagement at minimum wage, but not regularization without policy.

Applicant Nos. 2 to 8 were engaged by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants at various historical monuments in Agra between 2000 and 2004.

These applicants were orally disengaged by the respondents between October and December 2011.

Aggrieved by this disengagement, Applicant No. 1, the All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, submitted a representation to the respondents on January 2, 2012, seeking re-engagement and regularization of services for Applicants 2 to 8 from their initial engagement date, relying on various case laws and government circulars.

The Union contended that some applicants had completed over 10 years of service and were entitled to regularization based on Supreme Court judgments like Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others V. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806, Jaggo v. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 5580 of 2024, and Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024.

A supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants annexed a list of casual laborers, but the names of the present applicants were not included, though some casual laborers from that list had been regularized.

The applicants further highlighted that in an identical situation, the Industrial Tribunal had granted relief to certain individuals, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ C No. 20486/2013 Union of India V. Surendra Singh and another, and the present applicants were deprived of similar relief due to non-filing of a case at that time.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the applicants were never engaged as regular casual laborers, failed to specify their engagement period or produce payment documents, and thus had no right to regularization, citing Uma Devi (supra).

They also referenced a circular dated January 24, 2007, from the ASI regarding consideration of cases in light of Uma Devi (supra), asserting that casual laborers engaged for short, seasonal periods have no right to regularization.

1. Whether the applicants, who were engaged as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants between 2000 and 2004 and subsequently disengaged, are entitled to re-engagement and regularization of their services.

2. Whether the respondents' failure to decide the representation dated January 2, 2012, filed by the Union on behalf of the applicants, warrants a direction for consideration.

The court primarily relied on the principles established in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others V. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806, which generally holds that daily wage employees engaged by the government do not have an inherent right to regularization of their services.

The court also extensively cited and applied the interpretation and clarification provided in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 5580 of 2024, which recognizes that while Uma Devi aimed to curtail backdoor entries, it also acknowledged that regularization could be appropriate for irregularly appointed employees serving continuously for more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts, and cautioned against the indiscriminate rejection of legitimate claims of long-serving employees by misinterpreting Uma Devi.

The court further referenced Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 as a relevant precedent.

The court noted that while the applicants claimed engagement as Casual Mali/Garden Attendants from 2000-2004 and subsequent oral disengagement, they failed to provide documentary evidence of their engagement or the number of days worked.

The respondents argued that the applicants were never regularly engaged, their work was seasonal, and they had no right to regularization, citing Uma Devi.

The court acknowledged the Uma Devi judgment but highlighted the nuanced interpretation in Jaggo, which discussed the exploitation of casual laborers and clarified that Uma Devi intended regularization for irregularly appointed employees in sanctioned posts who had served continuously for over ten years.

The court emphasized that the spirit of Uma Devi should not be misused to deny legitimate claims.

While finding that the applicants were not entitled to regularization against a sanctioned post due to the absence of a regularization policy, the court recognized the specific circumstances where similar petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand were engaged as casual laborers, and a speaking order regarding their engagement had been passed.

The court found the applicants' case to be squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, indicating a pattern of engagement for casual work.

The court further observed that the respondents' practice of taking temporary work through outsourcing agencies, continuously repeated, justified the re-engagement of the applicants as casual labor.

The court directed the respondents to re-engage the applicants as casual workers in the Department, paying them the minimum wage applicable to similarly engaged daily wagers prior to 2013.

It was clarified that the applicants are not entitled to regularization of their services as the Department lacks a regularization policy, but they will be at liberty to raise a claim if such a policy is framed in the future.

This benefit was explicitly denied to those engaged through outsourcing.

The respondents were ordered to carry out these directives within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

All pending MAs were deemed disposed of, with no order as to cost.