Grant of temporary status is a recurring cause of action, precluding dismissal on grounds of limitation or laches.

The petitioner’s husband, a regular Mazdoor at Rajkot with 11 years of service, passed away on July 15, 2001

On compassionate grounds, the respondents appointed the petitioner as a full-time Casual Labourer in 2004

After serving for 12 years in this capacity, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2016 seeking temporary status and consequential benefits under the departmental scheme

The CAT rejected her application on the grounds of a 12-year delay, concluding she should have approached the Tribunal within a year of completing her first year of service

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application on the grounds of limitation and laches

2. Whether a casual labourer appointed on compassionate grounds is automatically entitled to temporary status under the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme" upon completion of one year of service

The Court applied the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme" effective from October 1, 1989

Clause A of the Scheme mandates that Group-D vacancies be filled via regularization of casual labourers, except for compassionate appointments

Under the Scheme’s conferment clause, temporary status is granted to casual labourers who render continuous service of at least one year (minimum 240 days, or 206 days in five-day week offices)

The Court also referenced the principle of "recurring cause of action" regarding benefits like temporary status

The Court established precedents regarding the limitation of financial arrears to three years in service matters

The Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning regarding delay "flawed," noting that the conferment of temporary status under the 1989 Scheme is intended to be automatic upon completion of the requisite service days

Therefore, the failure of the Department to grant such status constitutes a recurring cause of action, rendering the question of limitation irrelevant for the substantive claim

The Court emphasized that the petitioner, a widow and Group-D employee, should not be penalized for failing to formally "claim" a status that the Department was duty-bound to provide under its own rules

While the petitioner was entitled to the status from 2005 (one year after her 2004 appointment), the Court noted she only approached the CAT in 2016; hence, following Supreme Court guidelines on financial laches, her monetary benefits must be restricted

The respondents were directed to extend these benefits within three months ... subject to the condition that financial benefits/arrears shall only be payable from the year 2016 (the date she approached the CAT) until the date of actual payment