Intermittent stop-gap outsider engagement does not confer entitlement to alternate employment benefits.

The applicant had worked as a substitute at Perinad Post Office from approximately 2008. Following the promotion of the regular GDS Mail Packer, Vinobha, in 2013, the applicant claimed that he was provisionally engaged against the resultant vacancy from 13 May 2013 and continued until the filing of the Original Application.

He relied on salary receipts describing him as an “outsider” engaged on a “stop-gap” basis and claimed a right to alternative employment under the Director General of Posts’ letter dated 18 May 1979, which contemplated alternative employment for provisionally appointed ED/GDS agents having at least three years of continuous approved service.

The respondents contended that the applicant was only intermittently engaged as a substitute and that the vacant post was alternatively managed by the applicant and Ravindran Pillai.

According to the official records, the applicant worked during specified periods, while Ravindran Pillai worked from 1 June 2013 to 20 June 2013 and during other periods.

The respondents relied on the acquittance rolls, the approval of Ravindran Pillai’s engagement, and the charge report recording that the applicant handed over charge to Ravindran Pillai on 1 June 2013.

The applicant challenged the notification inviting direct recruitment to the post of GDS Mail Packer, Perinad, seeking quashing of the notification and regular or alternative employment.

Whether the applicant had completed three years of continuous approved provisional service so as to claim alternative employment under the Director General of Posts’ letter dated 18 May 1979.

Whether the applicant’s intermittent engagement as an outsider or substitute created any right to regular appointment or preferential appointment to the post of GDS Mail Packer, Perinad.

Whether the notification inviting direct recruitment to the post of GDS Mail Packer, Perinad, was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal applied the Director General of Posts’ letter dated 18 May 1979, under which provisionally appointed ED/GDS agents discharged for administrative reasons could be considered for alternative employment if they had completed at least three years of continuous approved service.

It distinguished such provisional appointments from temporary, outsider, or stop-gap engagements.

Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Tribunal reiterated that a temporary or casual employee cannot claim regularisation or absorption merely because of prolonged continuation where the original engagement was not made through the prescribed selection process.

It further relied on Superintendent of Post Office v. Dasan C., OP (CAT) No. 240 of 2017, holding that the benefit of alternative employment is available only to employees validly appointed provisionally and discharged after three years, and not to outsiders or persons engaged on a stop-gap basis.

The Tribunal also referred to G. Ruckmani v. Union of India and Tomy Joseph v. Superintendent of Post Office for the principles that stop-gap outsider engagements do not confer permanency or regularisation and that re-engagement benefits require a formal provisional appointment through the applicable process.

The applicant’s claim depended upon proof of three years of continuous approved provisional service.

The Tribunal found that the official records did not establish continuity.

The acquittance rolls, the approval of Ravindran Pillai’s engagement, and the charge report showed that the applicant and Ravindran Pillai were engaged intermittently and in alternate periods.

The charge report specifically recorded that the applicant handed over charge to Ravindran Pillai on 1 June 2013 and bore the signatures of both individuals.

The applicant did not satisfactorily explain this document or produce evidence proving that Ravindran Pillai was fictitious or that the applicant had continuously performed the duties without remuneration during the periods attributed to Ravindran Pillai.

The salary receipts relied upon by the applicant merely described him as an outsider engaged on a stop-gap basis and did not establish a continuous provisional appointment.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant did not satisfy the three-year continuous-service requirement under the 1979 communication and that his temporary outsider engagement could not create a right to regular appointment or invalidate the direct-recruitment notification.

His intermittent stop-gap engagement as an outsider did not confer any right to regularisation, permanency, preferential appointment, or continuation in the post.

The challenge to the direct-recruitment notification was rejected, and the Original Application was dismissed without any order as to costs.