Continuous Ad Hoc Service Followed by Regularization Must Be Counted for Seniority and Consequential Benefits.

The applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on a temporary/ad-hoc basis on March 22, 1991, in the Directorate of Census Operations, Assam

His services were subsequently regularized on June 27, 2000

The applicant sought regularization of his service from his initial date of appointment (March 25, 1991) instead of the year 2000, to match benefits granted to similarly situated employees under the Gauhati High Court judgment in W.P.(C) No. 4997/2002

The respondents rejected his representation via a memorandum dated August 24, 2023, citing that he was not a party to the previous litigation and that the claim was barred by a 23-year delay and laches

During the proceedings, it was noted that a similarly situated colleague, Khargeswar Boro, was granted retrospective regularization in January 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of counting continuous ad-hoc service for regularization and seniority from the date of initial appointment

2. Whether the claim is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the 23-year gap between regularization and the current challenge

The Court applied the principle of parity and non-discrimination among similarly situated employees as established in Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 1088) and Inder Pal Yadav v. U.O.I. (1985 2 SCC 648)

Regarding the defense of delay, the court considered the respondents' reliance on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which hold that stale claims—especially those affecting seniority—should generally not be entertained

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case was on identical footing with his colleague, Khargeswar Boro

While the respondents argued that the 23-year delay made the claim stale and would unsettle established seniority, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had recently (January 9, 2025) regularized Boro’s service from his 1993 appointment date

This administrative action by the respondents effectively neutralized the "delay" argument, as the department had already chosen to voluntarily rectify the seniority of a similarly situated person.

The Tribunal further observed that the pay scales for the relevant posts were identical, reinforcing the legitimacy of the applicant's claim for retrospective regularization in line with the Gauhati High Court's previous rulings

It held that the applicant is entitled to regularization from his initial date of appointment, March 25, 1991, until his regular appointment as Assistant Compiler on June 27, 2000

The respondents were directed to grant consequential benefits, including seniority and arrears of pay, within three months, maintaining parity with the treatment afforded to Khargeswar Boro

No costs were awarded