EMPLOYMENT: Regularization of long-serving casual labourers performing perennial duties is mandatory, overriding *Umadevi*.

The applicant, Babuli Rout, aged about 50, was engaged as a casual labourer with the Archaeological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar Circle, and was awarded 1/30th status on 05.08.2008 as per an OM issued by the DoP&T.

He had been discharging duties consistently since 1991.

The respondents rejected his prayer for regularization via an order dated 13.11.2019.

The respondents argued that the applicant did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in DoP&T OM dated 10.09.1993 for conferment of temporary status and subsequent regularization, as he was not engaged against a sanctioned post.

The respondents further relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the OA was devoid of merit.

The applicant contended that similarly situated casual labourers had been regularized by the department, and his case stood on the same footing, having worked uninterruptedly for nearly three decades.

1. Whether the rejection order dated 13.11.2019, denying regularization to the applicant, is sustainable in law.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective regularization of his service with consequential and monetary benefits.

The court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC On Line SC 3826, condemning the exploitation of temporary employees through "misuse of 'temporary' labels," "arbitrary termination," "lack of career progression," "using outsourcing as a shield," and "denial of basic rights and benefits".

It further relied on Dharam Singh Vs State of UP, 2025 INSC 998, which clarified that Umadevi (Supra) does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where work is permanent and the State has continuously relied on the workforce for decades.

The court also applied Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, reiterating that Umadevi (Supra) distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and cannot be used to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years for permanent work where the employer fails to conduct legitimate recruitment.

Additionally, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 9 SCC 327, and Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, were cited to underscore that continuous service for extended periods, performing duties indistinguishable from permanent roles, merits reconsideration of employment status, and that Umadevi (Supra) should not be selectively applied to reject claims of employees whose appointments are irregular but not illegal.

The doctrine of parity and consistency in administrative action under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was also invoked.

The court found that the respondents' reliance on Umaddevi (Supra) was misplaced as the applicant's case involved continuous service over three decades, akin to an irregular appointment rather than an illegal one.

The Supreme Court judgments cited by the applicant, particularly Jaggo (Supra), Dharam Singh (Supra), and Shripal (Supra), emphasized that State instrumentalities cannot endlessly exploit temporary labour performing perennial duties and that Umadevi (Supra) should not be used as a shield against regularization in such circumstances.

The court observed that the applicant had been working for approximately three decades on a casual basis, which constituted long-term "ad hocism" and a denial of basic rights, despite the essential and recurring nature of his work.

The Tribunal noted that if other similarly situated casual labourers had been regularized, denying the applicant would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, implying a breach of the doctrine of parity.

The impugned rejection order dated 13.11.2019 was quashed.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant's case for regularization as per the principles set out in Jaggo (Supra), Shripal (Supra), Dharam Singh (Supra), and Pawan Kumar (Supra), with retrospective effect from the date other similarly situated persons were regularized, for the purpose of qualifying service.

This compliance order is to be issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.