Casual laborers must be in active service on the scheme’s implementation date to claim regularization benefits.

The applicant was engaged as a casual daily wager by the respondent institute (LNIPE) in 1999

In 2010, the respondents introduced the "LNIPUE Akashmik Shramik (Asthai Star Pradutta Avam Niyamitikaran) Yojana, 2010" (Yojana 2010) to grant temporary status and regularization to daily wagers

While several other laborers were granted benefits, the applicant's claim was rejected via an order dated 12.10.2017

The applicant alleged discrimination, claiming juniors were regularized while he was ignored despite working until January 2010

The respondents contended that the applicant was ineligible because he was not in active service in February 2010, having voluntarily left his job in November 2009 to contest Panchayat Sarpanch elections

1. Whether the applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the grant of temporary status and regularization under the LNUPE Casual Labourers Scheme, 2010

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to exclude the applicant from the scheme based on his absence during the scheme’s implementation period was legally sustainable

LNUPE Casual Labourers (Temporary Status Grant and Regularization) Scheme, 2010 (Yojana 2010), which mandated that only casual laborers working at the time of the scheme's notification (February 2010) were eligible for consideration

The court also noted the administrative shift in policy effective 01.04.2010, wherein the Institute discontinued engaging casual laborers on muster rolls in favor of outsourcing through contractors

The Tribunal examined the implementation records of Yojana 2010, noting that 89 casual laborers were identified as eligible as of 24.02.2010

Upon re-examining the applicant’s eligibility following previous litigation (O.A. 61/2012 and O.A. 1052/2013), the respondents found that while six other aggrieved persons were omitted due to clerical errors, the applicant was intentionally excluded

The court found evidence that the applicant had ceased working in November 2009 to pursue political office (Panchayat elections), meaning he was not an employee at the critical juncture when the scheme was enforced in February 2010

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not meet the mandatory "continuous service" or "active employment" requirements of the Scheme at the time of its inception

The Tribunal affirmed that the applicant’s voluntary departure from service in 2009 rendered him ineligible for the benefits of regularization provided under Yojana 2010

The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly