Entitlement to Regularization for Long-Serving Casual Workers Based on Parity and Constitutional Fairness

The applicant was engaged as a casual worker in the Revenue Intelligence Department in June 1990

He claimed to have worked continuously for over two decades without being granted temporary status or regular absorption

He alleged discrimination, noting that juniors such as Shri Fatik Layek (joined 1991) and Shri Goutam Ghosh had been granted temporary status and regularized as Havaldars following a 2007 Tribunal order in OA 148/2005

The respondents contested the claim, arguing the applicant was ineligible under the 1993 Scheme because he lacked a formal engagement letter, was not sponsored by an Employment Exchange, and allegedly failed to meet age criteria under OM dated 07.06.1988

1. Whether the denial of temporary status and regular absorption to the applicant was discriminatory and arbitrary in light of benefits granted to his juniors

2. Whether procedural formalities, such as the absence of an engagement letter or Employment Exchange sponsorship, are valid grounds to deny regularization to a long-serving casual employee

The Tribunal relied on the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993"

It applied the principle of parity, ensuring that similarly situated employees are treated equally under Article 14 of the Constitution

Furthermore, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which clarified that the Uma Devi judgment should not be weaponized to deny regularization to employees in "irregular" (as opposed to illegal) appointments who have served for decades, even if they lack minor procedural formalities

The Tribunal found that the respondents' objections regarding the lack of an appointment letter and Employment Exchange sponsorship had already been settled in the case of the junior, Fatik Layek, and thus could not be used as a bar against the applicant

Regarding the age criteria, the Tribunal noted that the 1993 Scheme, being self-contained, did not explicitly mandate age limits for temporary status and that the respondents failed to provide specific evidence of the applicant’s age at the time of entry

Applying the ratio in Jaggo (supra), the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant performed perennial work for over 20 years, his situation was identical to his regularized juniors. Denying him the same benefits was held to be arbitrary and a misapplication of legal principles

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant temporary status and regularize his services effective from the date such benefits were granted to Fatik Layek, including all consequential benefits. The order must be implemented within 120 days