Continuous service through outsourcing does not confer a right to reinstatement or regularisation against the department.

The applicant claimed that he initially joined the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh as a casual worker in January 1993.

Following the trifurcation of that office in 2008, he worked at Itanagar in the Office of the Accountant General, Arunachal Pradesh, allegedly as a Staff Car Driver/Helper through various outsourcing agencies.

In the present application, he sought directions for a selection process for MTS/Group C/Group D posts with age relaxation, reinstatement as a casual employee pending such selection, and payment of salary from May 2024.

The respondents contended that the applicant was never a departmental employee or casual worker after 2008, but was engaged through private outsourcing agencies under agreements expressly excluding any claim for departmental employment, absorption or regularisation.

Whether the applicant, having worked through outsourcing agencies, acquired a right to reinstatement or re-engagement by the respondent department as a casual or contractual employee?

Whether the applicant was entitled to participate in a departmental selection process with age relaxation and seek regularisation on the basis of his long period of service since 1993?

Whether the respondents could be directed to continue the applicant in service and pay salary after his engagement through the outsourcing agency ceased?

The Tribunal considered the principle in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, under which long or continuous service by itself does not confer a right to regularisation, particularly where the initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post through a lawful recruitment process.

The Tribunal also applied the contractual-employment principle that a worker engaged by a private outsourcing agency remains an employee of that agency and cannot claim absorption, continuation or reinstatement against the principal department merely because the work was performed in the department’s premises.

The earlier Tribunal and High Court orders required consideration of the applicant’s case in the event of a regular recruitment process, but did not create an independent right to departmental employment or permanent continuation.

The Tribunal found that, after the 2008 trifurcation, the applicant’s engagement at Itanagar was through successive private agencies, including M/s Suraksha, M/s Pooja Star Enterprises, M/s Sonu Enterprise and M/s GA Digital Web Ltd.

The agreements and service bills showed that the applicant was treated as outsourced personnel, and the contractual terms specifically stated that he would not be considered an employee of the department or claim absorption or employment against it.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the contractual relationship was between the applicant and the outsourcing agencies, not between the applicant and the respondent department.

His continued service, even over a lengthy period, therefore did not create a right to reinstatement, re-engagement or regularisation.

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant had accepted engagement through the agencies and had not challenged that arrangement at the relevant time.

The earlier directions concerning consideration in a future recruitment process did not entitle him to continued employment pending such process, particularly when he was not a departmental employee.

It held that he was an employee of the outsourcing agency and not of the respondent department; therefore, he had no enforceable right to reinstatement, continuation as a casual employee, payment of departmental salary, or regularisation merely on account of long service.

The application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.