Departmental Temporary Status entitlement cannot be denied merely by invoking Umadevi.

The ten applicants were initially engaged as part-time casual labourers under the Department of Telecommunications between 1992 and 1997.

Pursuant to the DoT instructions dated 25.08.2000, they were converted into full-time casual labourers in July/October 2004 and continued working thereafter.

They claimed that, upon completing 240 days of full-time service in 2005, they became eligible for Temporary Status under the applicable departmental scheme and consequential regularization.

Their cases were considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee on 22.08.2006 for regularization as Regular Mazdoors and were recommended to the Circle Office; repeated reminders were issued when approval was not received.

The applicants alleged that similarly situated casual labourers had been granted Temporary Status and/or regularized, but their claims remained unresolved despite representations in 2015 and a legal notice in 2020.

The respondents relied principally on the absence of a subsisting regularization policy, the 2007 BSNL communication, delay, restructuring, and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

1. Whether the applicants, having been converted from part-time to full-time casual labourers under the DoT instructions dated 25.08.2000 and having completed 240 days of service, were entitled to conferment of Temporary Status under the applicable scheme.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to consideration for regularization as Regular Mazdoors in view of the DPC proceedings dated 22.08.2006, the recommendations made in their favour, and the regularization of similarly situated employees, notwithstanding Umadevi.

3. Whether denial of Temporary Status and/or regularization, while granting those benefits to similarly situated employees, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. What reliefs the applicants were entitled to.

The Tribunal applied the DoT Temporary Status Scheme, 1989, under which a casual labourer who had rendered at least one year of continuous service, including 240 days of work in the relevant year, could receive Temporary Status and specified benefits without reference to the availability of regular posts.

It also considered the DoT instructions dated 25.08.2000 concerning conversion of part-time casual labourers into full-time casual labourers, the Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2000 concerning regularization of specified categories of casual labourers, and the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Virendrabhai Chaudhari v. Union of India, SCA No. 13222 of 2014, holding that Umadevi does not invalidate or bar implementation of a departmental Temporary Status Scheme.

While Umadevi establishes that long service alone does not confer a right to regularization and that regularization must conform to Articles 14 and 16, it also permits consideration of irregularly appointed, qualified employees working for ten years or more against sanctioned posts as a one-time measure.

The Tribunal further relied on Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432, Ravi Verma v. Union of India, decided on 13.03.2018, and Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela, Civil Appeals Nos. 4443–4445 of 2021, for the principles that Umadevi cannot be mechanically applied to perpetuate exploitative temporary employment and that similarly situated employees cannot be selectively excluded from an existing regularization framework.

The Tribunal distinguished Temporary Status from regularization.

Since the applicants’ conversion to full-time casual labour was pursuant to departmental instructions, their entitlement to Temporary Status had to be examined under the 1989 Scheme and could not be rejected merely by invoking Umadevi.

The applicants’ cases were also materially different from an ordinary claim based only on length of service: they had been processed by the DPC, recommended for regularization, and followed by repeated departmental correspondence.

The respondents failed to identify any rational distinction between the applicants and the casual labourers who had received Temporary Status or regularization under the same policy framework.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that administrative inaction and a general reliance on Umadevi could not justify denying policy-based benefits or perpetuating unequal treatment.

However, regularization was not treated as automatic; it remained subject to verification of identical eligibility conditions, the applicable policy, recruitment requirements, and corresponding sanctioned posts.

The respondents were directed to verify each applicant’s attendance and service records, determine the date of completion of 240 days of full-time service, and confer Temporary Status from the respective date of entitlement with all benefits under the Scheme.

They were further directed to compare the applicants with similarly situated full-time casual labourers regularized under the same policy and to grant regularization on the principle of parity where the applicants satisfied the same conditions, subject to applicable statutory and recruitment requirements and identification of sanctioned posts.

A separate speaking order for each applicant was required within three months of receipt of the certified order, specifically addressing conversion, 240-day completion, Temporary Status, DPC recommendations, comparator employees, and regularization.

Consequential monetary benefits were to be determined under the applicable rules; the claimed 12% interest was not granted automatically.

The OA was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.