Continuous unblemished service in a temporary status warrants regularization and consequential pensionary benefits for retired employees.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer on June 1, 1986

Following a service dispute, the CGIT awarded his reinstatement on May 18, 2001, directing the respondents to treat his absence as continuous service for pensionary benefits

This award was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court

Consequently, the applicant was reinstated as a Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) effective from October 1, 1989

But the respondents treated his 10-year seniority for regularization from December 12, 2001, instead of 1989

The applicant retired on April 30, 2023, without being regularized, and was subsequently denied pensionary benefits on the grounds that he did not hold a regular post in the DOT/BSNL

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of service as a Regular Mazdoor effective from December 13, 2011, upon completion of 10 years of temporary status

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules by counting his past services as qualifying service

Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and Rule 37A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, regarding the eligibility of temporary employees for pension

Supreme Court precedent in Jaggo v. U.O.I & Ors. (2024), which held that long-term, unblemished service in essential duties transforms irregular appointments into scenarios demanding regularization

Supreme Court v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) as clarified by Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024) and Dharam Singh v. U.O.I (2025), established that "ad-hocism" and "procedural formalities" cannot be used to weaponize the law against employees who have rendered decades of indispensable service

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's long and uninterrupted service from 1986 to 2023 could not be ignored

It noted that the CGIT award, which attained finality through the Supreme Court, specifically mandated treating the period of absence as continuous service for pension purposes

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ failure to regularize the applicant—despite his eligibility as of December 2011—was arbitrary

Drawing from Jaggo, the Tribunal observed that the applicant performed essential duties and that the lack of a regular post "talisman" cannot override fairness when the work is perennial

The court rejected the respondents' selective application of Uma Devi, noting that the applicant was not a "backdoor entry" but an irregular employee whose long-standing service earned him a substantive right to regularization

It held that the applicant must be considered for regularization effective from December 13, 2011

The respondents were directed to: (i) grant notionally fixed financial upgradations/promotions due after 2011; (ii) count his service from October 1, 1989, as qualifying service for pension; and (iii) release all terminal/pensionary benefits accordingly. The exercise must be completed within three months.