Intervening periods after reinstatement with back wages must be considered when assessing regularisation eligibility.

The applicant was conferred temporary status as a casual labourer with effect from 1 November 1997.

He was terminated twice and, following earlier litigation, reinstated with back wages; the later reinstatement excluded the period during which he was in judicial custody.

He sought regularisation, contending that the intervening periods between termination and reinstatement should count towards his qualifying service, and also sought pensionary and other consequential benefits.

The respondents maintained that temporary status did not confer an automatic right to regularisation and that regularisation depended on vacancies, applicable rules and successful participation in the prescribed selection process.

The Tribunal identified the surviving issue as whether the intervening periods should be excluded when assessing the applicant’s service for regularisation.

1. Whether the periods between the applicant’s termination and reinstatement, where reinstatement was accompanied by back wages, should be treated as breaks in service when considering his claim for regularisation.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim to regularisation could be granted without regard to the applicable recruitment rules, available vacancies and prescribed selection process.

Under paragraphs 4(iv) and 8(i) of the DoPT letter dated 10 September 1993, temporary status does not confer an automatic right to regular appointment; eligible casual labourers with temporary status may be considered against the specified Group ‘D’ vacancies, subject to the applicable recruitment rules and selection process.

The Tribunal also relied on authorities addressing reinstatement and continuity of service: Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak states that reinstatement with continuity and back wages is ordinarily appropriate in wrongful-termination cases, subject to the circumstances governing relief; Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh holds that notional or artificial breaks, or breaks precipitated by court orders, may be ignored in reckoning qualifying service.

The Tribunal further considered State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, Mahabir Prasad v. DTC, Jagdish Chander v. DTC and Om Prakash v. Delhi Jal Board on the consequences of reinstatement and continuity of service, including the principle that the substance of the relief—not merely the absence of an express formula—must be considered.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s reinstatement pursuant to earlier litigation, coupled with the award of back wages, could not be disregarded when assessing continuity of service.

It held that the intervening periods could not be mechanically treated as breaks without considering the effect of the reinstatement orders and back wages; the absence of an express direction using the words “continuity of service for regularisation” did not foreclose that inquiry.

The Tribunal also noted that counting the intervening periods could bring the applicant within the service period he relied on for regularisation.

However, the governing DoPT instructions and recruitment requirements remained relevant: the applicant’s claim was to be examined in accordance with law, rather than treated as an automatic entitlement to regularisation.

Any consequential relief was to depend on the decision taken on regularisation.

The respondents were directed to comply within three months of receiving the certified copy; there was no order as to costs.