Eligibility of long-serving casual labourers for temporary status and regularization requires departmental factual verification.

The ten applicants claimed that they had been engaged by the respondents as casual labourers between 1982 and 1992 and had continued working thereafter, including up to the filing of the Original Application.

They asserted that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and were therefore entitled to temporary status and subsequent regularisation under the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 10 September 1993.

The respondents denied that the applicants were casual labourers covered by the scheme, contending that they were daily-rated labourers engaged seasonally and intermittently as required, had not completed 240 days in a year, and had never been granted temporary status.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed production of the attendance records. The respondents produced records for the period 2007–2017 and stated that older financial records had been preserved only for ten years.

The applicants also relied on departmental certificates showing their engagement as Majdoor/Beldar, remuneration, and character verification, which had not been specifically denied by the respondents.

The applicants sought regularisation against 181 Group C vacancies notified on 23 May 2013. The respondents stated that the selection process had been completed and all advertised posts had been filled.

Whether the applicants were casual labourers who satisfied the eligibility requirements for temporary status and regularisation under the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 10 September 1993.

Whether the applicants could be directly regularised against the 181 notified vacancies after the selection process had been completed and the posts had been filled.

Whether, in view of the disputed service records and the respondents’ custody of the relevant material, the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority after giving the applicants an opportunity to produce evidence.

Whether compensation could be granted to applicants found eligible who had attained the age of superannuation.

The Tribunal applied the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 10 September 1993 concerning the one-time scheme for conferment of temporary status and regularisation of casual labourers.

The departmental clarification dated 29 January 1998 stated that the scheme applied only to casual employees who were in service on 10 September 1993 and had completed one year of continuous service with 240 or 206 days, as applicable, by that date; it did not extend to persons appointed subsequently or those who had not completed the prescribed number of days.

The Tribunal considered Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, which distinguishes illegal appointments from irregular appointments and recognises a one-time consideration for eligible employees who have worked for ten years in duly sanctioned posts.

It also relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, and Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, concerning fair consideration of long-serving temporary employees and the proper application of Uma Devi.

The Tribunal further referred to OA No. 1923 of 2003, Surendra Kumar v. Union of India, and the compensation principle stated in Ram Abhilash Singh v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 22534 of 2025, order dated 21 January 2026.

The Tribunal held that direct regularisation against the notified vacancies could not be granted because the respondents stated that the selection process had concluded and all posts had already been filled.

However, the record disclosed material factual disputes regarding the applicants’ dates and continuity of engagement, the number of days worked, and their similarity to employees who had allegedly received temporary status or regularisation.

The respondents’ production of attendance registers for 2007–2017 established that the applicants had been engaged, while the departmental certificates supporting their engagement had not been specifically controverted.

Since the relevant records were primarily in the respondents’ custody and the existing material did not conclusively establish whether the applicants had completed 240 days or otherwise satisfied the 1993 scheme, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to remit the matter for factual verification rather than decide eligibility finally.

The competent authority was directed to assess the claims in light of the 1993 Office Memorandum, OA No. 1923 of 2003, Jaggo, and M.L. Kesari, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The respondents were directed to fix and communicate dates on which the applicants could produce supporting facts and evidence, and thereafter to examine each applicant’s eligibility for temporary status and regularisation under the applicable scheme and precedents.

If an applicant was found eligible, had continued in service up to 2014/2017, and was similarly situated to the relevant regularised employees, the respondents were directed to grant temporary status and regularise the service with consequential benefits.

If an eligible applicant had attained the age of superannuation, compensation of ₹8 lakh was to be paid in accordance with Ram Abhilash Singh.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.