Contractual Engagement Under Work Orders Confers No Legal Right to Regularization despite Long Continuous Service.

The applicant joined the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) as a driver in 1998 on a hand receipt basis and claimed continuous service from April 10, 2002

His name appeared at Serial No. 44 in a 2007 list of casual workers

When his request for regularization was rejected on September 18, 2015, he filed the present OA

Despite an interim "status quo" order from the Tribunal, his services were terminated in 2019, though he was later reinstated on a contractual basis in 2024 following a contempt petition

The respondents contended that the applicant was never a direct casual laborer but was engaged via "Work Order Contracts," which are intermittent financial bids for services and not direct employment

1. Whether the applicant, engaged via intermittent Work Orders, is entitled to regularization on par with similarly situated employees?

2. Whether the applicant meets the eligibility criteria for the one-time regularization measure for Hand Receipt/Muster Roll workers?

The court applied the DoPT OM No. 49014/2/90-Estt (C) (1994), which mandates that casual labor must be sponsored through the Employment Exchange for regularization eligibility

CPWD Directorate's instructions (No. 22/18/2011-Ec. X), stating that persons engaged under Work Orders are not department employees

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (reiterated in M.L. Kesari), establishing that regularization requires a valid selection process against sanctioned posts

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane v. Santosh Tukaram Tiwari, which held that prolonged contractual service does not confer a right to regularization, especially when the appointment lacked a formal selection procedure

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he was a direct casual employee. Unlike his cited peers (Senthilkumar and Sibian Prabu), who were directly engaged and held high seniority in approved lists, the applicant was an external contractor who submitted financial bids for service

The court noted that because the applicant was not sponsored by an Employment Exchange, his engagement was "regular" under the 1993 Scheme

Applying Santosh Tukaram Tiwari, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's engagement was a "stopgap" contractual arrangement under specific Work Orders, which explicitly allowed termination at any time

The court determined that the applicant did not satisfy the three-pronged test in Jaggo v. Union of India, as his appointment was neither transparent nor merit-based

The Tribunal dismissed the OA, setting aside the claim for retrospective regularization. However, in the interest of justice and considering his long service, the court granted an "observation" that respondents may consider engaging him in a suitable capacity based on administrative exigencies, though without any right to regular appointment