Casual laborers with ten years of continuous service are entitled to regularization based on parity of treatment.

The thirteen applicants are casual laborers (Monument Attendants/MTS) working for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

Eleven applicants were appointed between 1993 and 2003, while two were appointed in 2009

The applicants sought regularization of their services, citing parity with similarly situated employees in the J&K and Dehradun regions who were regularized following judgments in Ghulam Nabi Ahangar and Chatur Singh

The respondents contended that ASI is a government department performing sovereign functions, not an industry, and that regularization is governed strictly by the criteria in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which requires 10 years of service as of April 10, 2006, against sanctioned posts

They further argued that regular vacancies for MTS must be filled through the Staff Selection Commission

Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization or parity of treatment with similarly situated casual laborers/Monument Attendants in ASI who were regularized under previous judicial mandates.

Whether an artificial distinction can be maintained between the applicants and other regularized Monument Attendants based on regional location or specific nature of work.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principle of parity and Article 14 of the Constitution to ensure equal treatment of similarly situated employees

It considered the restrictive conditions for regularization established in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and M.L. Kesari, which emphasize 10 years of continuous service against sanctioned posts

the controlling precedents were the specific applications of these principles to ASI staff in Chatur Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 13562/2024) and Ghulam Nabi Ahangar & Ors. v. State & Ors. (SWP No. 290/2018), which directed regularization for long-serving casual workers in the same department

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had been performing the duties of Monument Attendants for over a decade, and many had already been accorded "temporary status"

The Bench noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the applicants lacked the essential qualifications required under the Recruitment Rules for MTS/Monument Attendants

The court rejected the respondents' argument that the applicants were distinct from those in the Chatur Singh case, finding that the nature of work—maintenance and upkeep of protected sites—was identical regardless of the region

By applying the ratio of the High Court's decision in Chatur Singh, the Tribunal concluded that denying the applicants similar benefits would constitute an "artificial distinction" and a violation of the right to parity for similarly situated persons

The respondents were directed to consider and grant regularization or appropriate status to all applicants who completed 10 or more years of continuous service, treating them as Monument Attendants (MTS) for all consequential purposes

This relief was ordered to be extended in the same manner as Office Order No. A-64/62/2022-Adm.II dated 17.05.2023

The respondents must complete this exercise within three months of receiving the order