Ex-casual employees past superannuation are entitled to compensation in lieu of regularization on parity grounds.

The five applicants were engaged as casual "Gang Men" in the North Central Railway between 1980 and 1982

Following a 2005 notification for re-engagement of ex-casual labors, they underwent a screening test in 2007; however, the respondents rejected their claims in 2010

After a previous round of litigation (OA No. 881 of 2011), the results were eventually declared in 2018, but the applicants were found "unsuitable" for regularization

The applicants approached the Tribunal in 2023 seeking regular absorption and consequential benefits, citing parity with similarly situated casual labors (Raj Bahadur Singh and others) who had secured relief through the High Court and Supreme Court

By the time of the hearing, all applicants had reached or crossed the age of superannuation (58–59 years)

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular absorption against Group ‘D’ posts despite having crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of litigation?

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on the precedents set by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court for similarly situated casual labors?

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity and the doctrine of compensation in lieu of reinstatement for aged litigants.

Specifically applied the mandate from the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Raj Bahadur Singh v. Union of India (Writ A No. 11282 of 2018), which held that while ex-casual labors have no indefeasible right to regular status, the Railway cannot reopen settled eligibility issues to deny benefits to long-standing litigants

Applied the quantum of compensation as enhanced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025, which established ₹8 lakhs as a just sum for such cases

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were screened for regular posts but denied benefits on grounds previously found unsustainable in connected litigations

The court noted that while the applicants sought regular absorption, they had all reached the age of superannuation (60 years), rendering physical reinstatement impossible

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the applicants were barred by delay, finding they were "similarly situated" to the petitioners in the Raj Bahadur Singh case

Since the legal eligibility of such casual labors had already been adjudicated by higher forums, and the only hurdle was the applicants' age and the delayed declaration of results, the Tribunal determined that the most equitable relief was to extend the same compensatory benefit awarded by the Supreme Court to this group

It directed the respondents to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) to each of the five applicants within three months; failure to remit the amount within the stipulated time would attract a simple interest rate of 6% per annum until realization