Discriminatory denial of regularization and pension to similarly situated temporary-status employees violates Articles 14 and 16.

The applicants were engaged by the Postal Department as Contingent Paid (CP) employees, including sweepers, farrashes, a waterman and a mali, between 1981 and 1996.

They claimed continuous service for approximately 27–35 years and asserted that, pursuant to Supreme Court decisions dated 27 October 1987 and 29 November 1989 and the Department’s order dated 30 November 1992, they were entitled to temporary status and subsequent regularization after completion of the prescribed period of service.

The applicants had earlier filed OA No. 350 of 2020, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider their representation.

The representation was rejected by order dated 1 March 2021, principally on the ground that the applicants had been engaged against workload and without sanctioned posts.

During the pendency of the present OA, Applicants 2, 6 and 7 were regularized by the respondents.

The remaining claim concerned Applicants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, who contended that denial of similar treatment was discriminatory, particularly as they had been granted full-time status and had rendered long and continuous service.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicants’ claim for regularization by order dated 1 March 2021 was lawful, despite their long and continuous service and conferment of full-time/temporary status?

2. Whether Applicants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 were entitled to treatment equivalent to Applicants 2, 6 and 7, who had been regularized during the pendency of the OA, in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to the benefits contemplated by Rule 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, including regular status and post-retiral benefits?

The Tribunal relied on Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in public employment.

It applied Rule 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, under which selected categories of whole-time contingency-paid staff, including sweepers, watermen, farrashes and gardeners, working alongside regular employees are to be brought onto the regular establishment and treated as regular employees.

The Tribunal also considered the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, concerning one-time regularization of employees who had completed ten years of continuous service in irregular but not illegal appointments.

State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, clarified that eligible employees could not be denied consideration merely because the one-time exercise had not properly included them.

The earlier Supreme Court directions concerning temporary status for eligible casual labourers and the Department’s implementation order dated 30 November 1992 were also taken into account.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had been granted full-time casual-labour status by 1 January 1996 and that Applicants 1 and 3 had been confirmed as full-time employees on 1 March 1994.

Applying Rule 154(a), the Tribunal held that employees in the relevant categories who had been granted temporary/full-time status were entitled to the benefits attached to such status, including salary, dearness allowance and other service benefits.

The respondents’ own regularization of Applicants 2, 6 and 7 during the proceedings demonstrated that similarly situated employees had received different treatment.

Since no legally relevant distinction was shown between those applicants and Applicants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, the differential treatment was held to violate Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal therefore extended the benefit of the regularization principles in Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari to the remaining five applicants and rejected the respondents’ reliance on the absence of sanctioned posts as a ground for denying them equivalent treatment.

The Tribunal held that Applicants 1—Rajendra Prasad, 3—Raju Prasad, 4—Kiran Devi, 5—Shiv Sagar Gupta and 8—Rajendra Kumar Singh were entitled to the same treatment as the similarly situated applicants whose services had been regularized; their services were consequently directed to be treated as regularized.

The respondents were directed to issue necessary orders and extend all post-retiral benefits, including pension, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Failure to comply would attract simple interest at 6% per annum.

No order was made as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.