Continuous casual service exceeding ten years warrants retrospective regularization despite missing specific departmental scheme cut-off dates.

The applicant, Khirod Chandra Bhoi, served as a Part-Time Mail Motor Driver (MMD) from 21.04.1999

Following a 2019 Tribunal order in a previous litigation (OA 805/2015), the respondents engaged him as a Full-Time Casual Labourer on a regular basis effective 08.07.2019

The applicant sought conferment of temporary status effective from his initial engagement in 1999 and subsequent regularization of his service as MMD

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that under the Department of Posts’ specific scheme, temporary status is reserved for workers employed as of 29.11.1989

They further contended that the applicant did not meet the criteria of the 2006 DoP&T Office Memorandum or the 2014 Departmental Circular regarding the 10-year continuous service cut-off for regularization

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to conferment of temporary status and retrospective regularization of service despite being engaged after the cut-off dates specified in Departmental schemes

2. Whether the long-standing continuous service of a casual labourer creates a right to regularization in light of evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence

The court primarily relied on the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which allowed for the regularization of workers who served for 10 years or more against sanctioned posts

The Tribunal emphasized that the strict "cut-off date" requirement from Umadevi has been modified by more recent Supreme Court precedents, namely Jaggo v. Union of India and Others (2024), Dharam Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Another (2025), and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2026)

These cases collectively support the regularization of long-serving casual employees to protect the fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's continuous service as a Driver since 1999 was undisputed and his performance was not adversely commented upon by the Department

While the respondents relied on strict internal circulars and the 1989/1993 cut-off dates for temporary status, the Tribunal held that it "cannot close its eyes" to the essential nature of the applicant's duties (driving mail vehicles) over several decades

Applying the updated legal standard from Jaggo, Dharam Singh, and Bhola Nath, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s long-term service necessitated an affirmative consideration for regularization. The Tribunal found that the departmental insistence on old cut-off dates was superseded by the "substantial sea change" in jurisprudence regarding employees who have rendered over a decade of service

The respondents were directed to regularize the applicant's services and issue a compliance order within 90 days. Consequent to the order of regularization, the prayer for "temporary status" was rendered otiose (redundant)