Government must reconsider regularization of long-serving temporary employees performing perennial work.

The applicants were engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoors (“DRMs”) in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Applicant No. 1 worked as a Computer Operator/Computer Assistant from 2007 onwards, while Applicant No. 2 was initially engaged for 90 days in June 2007 and thereafter continued through successive extensions in the Directorate of Disaster Management.

They claimed that their services were continuous, their duties were perennial in nature, and that they had worked during disaster-management and emergency operations.

The Directorate of Disaster Management had obtained approval for 22 posts, including posts of Godown Keeper and Computer Assistant/Data Operator.

The applicants asserted that, although they performed work connected with these sanctioned functions, they were not regularised, unlike similarly placed DRMs/MTS employees in the Secretariat, Deputy Resident Commissioner’s Office, and other departments.

They sought regular appointment to the post of Godown Keeper and payment of wages at 1/30th of the minimum of the applicable pay scale plus Dearness Allowance.

The applicants made representations for regularisation in 2016 and their cases were considered but rejected, principally on the grounds that they had not been engaged against sanctioned posts and that their appointments contained no promise of regularisation.

A vacancy notification for two posts of Godown Keeper and one post of Light Vehicle Driver was issued in 2017, and the applicants applied for the post of Godown Keeper.

The respondents subsequently stated that the posts had not been filled, that the posts created for the Directorate were later abolished, and that they were revived by the Ministry on 28 November 2023 for filling through a common recruitment process.

1. Whether the applicants’ cases for regularisation were required to be reconsidered in view of their long and continuous engagement in work of a perennial nature, despite their initial engagement as DRMs and the respondents’ contention that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts.

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to fill the sanctioned posts while continuing to engage persons on ad hoc, contractual, or daily-rated terms justified reconsideration of the applicants’ claims under the principles governing temporary employment and regularisation.

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to a direct order of regular appointment to the post of Godown Keeper and consequential monetary benefits.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the constitutional principles governing public appointments and regularisation discussed in *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi*, particularly the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the limited possibility of a one-time regularisation measure for long-serving employees engaged against duly sanctioned posts.

The Tribunal also relied on *Jaggo v. Union of India*, 2024 INSC 1034, which cautioned against the prolonged use of temporary or contractual labels for employees performing essential, recurring, and integral functions, and directed appropriate relief for long-serving temporary employees in the circumstances of that case.

The Tribunal further considered the applicable Recruitment Rules for the post of Godown Keeper and the administrative requirement that regular appointments be made through the prescribed recruitment process.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had worked for a substantial period—since 2007 and 2009 respectively—and that the respondents did not dispute the continuity or duration of their engagement.

It considered significant that the Administration had sanctioned 22 posts, yet did not fill them on a regular basis while continuing to utilise persons in ad hoc or diverted capacities for disaster-management work.

In the Tribunal’s view, this conduct was inconsistent with the principle that recurring and perennial government work should not be performed indefinitely through temporary arrangements.

Although *Uma Devi* discouraged backdoor appointments and did not create an automatic right to regularisation, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ claims required reconsideration in light of the reasoning in *Jaggo*, particularly because their duties were of a perennial nature and their long service had not been disputed.

However, the Tribunal did not itself direct appointment to the post of Godown Keeper or grant monetary benefits; it ordered a fresh consideration of the regularisation claims.

The exercise was directed to be completed within four months from receipt of the order.

The Tribunal did not grant direct regular appointment as Godown Keepers, payment of 1/30th wages with Dearness Allowance, back wages, or any other monetary relief.

There was no order as to costs.