Extended casual service creates a right to regularization despite initial irregular appointment.

The ten applicants have been working as Group-D (casual) employees in the Income Tax Department since 2009 and 2010.

They were engaged on a daily wage basis and subsequently received 1/30th of the minimum pay scale.

Despite their uninterrupted service for over 15 years, the respondents issued a letter dated 16.01.2025 directing their disengagement on the grounds that they were hired after the issuance of the DOP&T OM dated 04/10.12.2008.

The respondents contested the plea, arguing the initial appointments were made without following recruitment rules.

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking regularization and the quashing of the disengagement letter.

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in directing the disengagement of the applicants after 15 years of uninterrupted service.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to be considered for regularization in light of the evolving jurisprudence on temporary/casual employment.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles of equity and the "model employer" obligations under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

It applied the doctrine from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), distinguishing between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, where the former can be regularized as a one-time measure.

It further integrated recent Supreme Court precedents including Jaggo v. Union of India, which critiques the misuse of "temporary" labels to evade long-term obligations.

Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, which holds that sustained service for 25 years warrants reclassification to regular status.

Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., which cautions that Umadevi cannot be used as a "shield" for exploitation.

Prem Chand v. State of Punjab, asserting that artificial breaks in service should be disregarded for regularization eligibility.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants’ service for over a decade and a half remained undisputed by the respondents.

Applying the reasoning in Jaggo and Shripal, the court found that the "temporary" status of the applicants was a misclassification of roles that are essential and perennial in nature.

The Tribunal reasoned that the State, as a "constitutional employer," cannot balance budgets by exploiting the most basic workforce through perpetual "adhocism".

The Tribunal determined that the letter dated 16.01.2025 was "bad in law" because it sought to terminate employees who had acquired a legitimate expectation for consideration for regularization through long, uninterrupted service.

By linking the facts to the "Rule of Law," the Tribunal concluded that the sheer duration of service (15 years) necessitated a departure from the strict initial terms of engagement to satisfy the principles of fairness and dignity.

It held that the applicants’ long service warrants a consideration for regularization despite the technicalities of their initial appointment.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants for regularization in light of the cited Supreme Court precedents within 180 days from the receipt of the order.

The Original Application (O.A.) was allowed with no orders as to costs.