Facts
The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer by the respondents in September 2000
Source reference: p. 3, para 3.1From November 2001 onwards, the applicant was moved under private service providers (contractors) for housekeeping work
Source reference: p. 3, para 3.1Relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Rita Mary & batch cases (W.P. No. 16733/2009), the applicant filed OA 137/2020 seeking temporary status and regularization
Source reference: p. 2-3The Tribunal initially directed the respondents to consider his representation; however, the respondents issued a speaking order on 17.09.2020 rejecting his claim
Source reference: p. 2-3The applicant challenged this rejection, seeking parity with those covered under the "Part-Time Casual Labourers Regularisation Scheme CBIC 2020"
Source reference: p. 4, para 3.3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to temporary status and regularization under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" or the 2020 Scheme framed following the Rita Mary judgment
Source reference: p. 6, para 92. Whether the applicant, having worked under a private contractor since 2005, maintains an employer-employee relationship with the respondents to claim regularization
Source reference: p. 7, para 10Law Applied
The court applied the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993," which provides that temporary status is a one-time measure for those in employment as of 10.09.1993 with 240 days of continuous service
Source reference: p. 3, para 3.2It relied on the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which prohibits "back-door entries" and mandates that regularization cannot be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts or contrary to recruitment rules
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 3.3; p. 8, para 12Furthermore, it applied the principle that a scheme framed in personam (specifically for petitioners in Rita Mary) cannot be claimed as a matter of right by non-parties as a judgment in rem
Source reference: p. 4, para 3.3; p. 7, para 11Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the 1993 Scheme as he was engaged only in 2000, well after the scheme’s commencement
Source reference: p. 3, para 3.2Regarding the 2020 Scheme, the court noted it was a one-time measure specifically for the petitioners in the Rita Mary case, and the applicant was not a party to those proceedings
Source reference: p. 4, para 3.3Crucially, the court observed that since 01.11.2005, the applicant was employed by a private contractor, effectively severing the employer-employee relationship with the Department
Source reference: p. 7, para 10, 12The court reasoned that providing regularization to a contract worker would violate the principles of transparent public recruitment and the mandate against back-door appointments established in the Umadevi case
Source reference: p. 8, para 12Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant had no vested right to regularization as he did not meet the scheme's criteria and was currently a contract employee
The court answered both issues in the negative, stating the applicant cannot claim parity with the Rita Mary petitioners
Source reference: p. 8, para 12Consequently, the OA was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the impugned speaking order dated 17.09.2020 was upheld
Source reference: p. 8, para 13; p. 9, para 7Original Court PDF
R RAJESH KUMARvsREVENUE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in