Continuous performance of perennial duties warrants regularization despite failure in subsequent competitive recruitment examinations.

The applicant was appointed as a casual worker on April 2, 1985, at the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (IICB)

Following a termination in 1986 and subsequent litigation reaching the Supreme Court, the applicant filed O.A. 137/2004, where the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his regularization

Consequently, the applicant was granted "temporary status" effective April 9, 2009

Despite decades of service, the respondents refused regularization, citing the applicant’s failure to qualify in a 2011 selection process for the post of Laboratory Attendant and arguing that the "Casual Workers’ Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995" was a one-time measure

The matter was reheard following a remand by the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 239/2025

By the time of the final hearing, the applicant was approximately 65 years old and had superannuated

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of service after working for a prolonged period as a casual laborer with conferred temporary status

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to qualify for a specific recruitment post (Laboratory Attendant) justifies the denial of regularization of his existing temporary service

The Tribunal relied on the Casual Workers’ Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995 as the departmental framework for regularization

It applied the principle from State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) regarding the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, while noting its contemporary limitations

The Tribunal heavily relied on recent Supreme Court precedents, including Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025) and Jaggo v. Union of India & Others (2024), which establish that long-term continuous service in a temporary capacity indicates the perennial nature of the work and that "temporary" labels cannot be used as a shield to evade statutory obligations or exploit employees

Additionally, it cited Govt. of Puducherry v. K. Velajagan (2025) to affirm that Uma Devi cannot justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without legitimate recruitment

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had served the department for over 30 years, and the grant of "temporary status" in 2009 was an admission that he occupied a sanctioned post performing duties of a perennial nature

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the applicant’s failure in the Laboratory Attendant selection barred his regularization; it held that the claim was for the regularization of his existing casual service, not a fresh appointment to a different cadre

Applying the ratio in Shripal and Jaggo, the Tribunal found that denying regularization to an employee who served until superannuation under a "temporary" label constitutes an exploitative practice and a travesty of justice

The court emphasized that when an institution misclassifies essential, recurring work as "contractual" or "temporary," it deprives workers of the dignity and security mandated by law

It directed the respondents to regularize the applicant’s services effective from April 9, 2009 (the date he was granted temporary status), acknowledging his continuous performance of perennial duties

The respondents were ordered to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant within three months of the order

No order as to costs was made