Long service as a voucher-paid driver does not confer a right to regularisation.

The applicant claimed that he had worked continuously as a Daily Rated Driver, Grade-III, from 14 February 2006 and sought regularisation from the date on which similarly situated Drivers were regularised, along with seniority, arrears and other consequential benefits.

He relied on the regularisation of Daily Rated Drivers pursuant to the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 361 of 2012 and contended that he had been selected through the prescribed process and was working against a regular vacancy.

The respondents contended that the applicant had not been engaged by a Government Department but by the Project Implementation Agency as a voucher-paid Driver, and therefore could not claim the benefit granted to Daily Rated Drivers employed in Government Departments.

The applicant’s earlier O.A. No. 904 of 2013 was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the matter afresh; his subsequent O.A. No. 1632 of 2016 resulted in a direction to consider his representation. The representation was rejected on 30 December 2016, but that rejection was not challenged and had attained finality.

1. Whether the applicant, having worked as a voucher-paid Driver under the Project Implementation Agency, was entitled to regularisation as Driver Grade-III on parity with Daily Rated Drivers employed in Government Departments.

2. Whether long and continuous service, alleged prior selection, and regularisation granted to other Drivers created a legal right to regularisation against sanctioned posts.

3. Whether the applicant could seek the same relief despite the rejection of his earlier representation having attained finality.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which relief may be granted only where an enforceable legal right is established.

Relying on Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, AIR Online 2021 SC 864, and the principles reiterated from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the Tribunal held that regularisation cannot ordinarily be directed unless the employee was appointed through a constitutionally valid recruitment process, in accordance with the applicable rules, against a sanctioned vacant post; mere long service, temporary or daily-wage employment, or continuation under interim orders does not create a right to regularisation.

The Tribunal also relied on Daya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and related precedents, which hold that backdoor, irregular or non-sanctioned appointments cannot be regularised and that regularisation must conform to the Government’s applicable policy.

The Madras High Court’s decision in Secretary to Government, Women and Child Welfare Department, Puducherry v. S. Anbu, W.A. Nos. 69–72 and 74 of 2019, was relied upon for the principle that temporary, contractual, casual or daily-rated employees appointed otherwise than through the prescribed recruitment procedure cannot claim permanent absorption merely because they served for several years.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim that he had undergone the written, skill and practical tests was unsupported by the record.

It further found that he was engaged by the Project Implementation Agency on a voucher-payment basis, rather than appointed to a sanctioned post in a Government Department; consequently, he was not similarly situated to the Drivers covered by O.A. No. 361 of 2012.

The alleged continuity of service therefore did not establish a right to regularisation under the constitutional scheme governing public employment.

The Tribunal also noted that the appointment order produced in the earlier proceedings had been found to be fabricated and that the applicant’s earlier claim had already been rejected by order dated 30 December 2016, which he had not challenged.

Applying the principles in Ilmo Devi, Umadevi and S. Anbu, the Tribunal held that neither length of service, alleged parity, nor sympathy could overcome the absence of a valid appointment against a sanctioned post and through the prescribed recruitment process.

It held that he had no enforceable right to regularisation as Driver Grade-III, seniority, arrears of wages or other consequential benefits, and that he could not claim parity with Drivers employed in Government Departments.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.