Long service does not confer automatic regularization; eligibility must be considered under applicable policy against sanctioned posts.

The applicant had allegedly been engaged as a part-time/contingent-paid Sweeper at the Head Post Office, Patiala, since 1977.

In 1991–1992, the Department assessed the workload and considered creation of regular Sweeper posts; the applicant expressed willingness for regularization, but no effective appointment followed.

Her earlier claim for temporary status, absorption and regularization in OA No. 778/PB/1994 was dismissed, and subsequent representations and writ proceedings also resulted in rejection or directions for reconsideration.

Pursuant to an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10 July 2012, the respondents reconsidered and rejected her representation on 11 October 2012, holding that she worked for less than five hours daily and could not be equated with regular Class-IV employees.

The respondents maintained that she worked only two to three hours as and when required, was paid pro rata from the contingency fund, had never been appointed against a sanctioned post, and therefore had no right to regularization or regular service benefits.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for regularization/regular appointment solely on the basis that she was a part-time, contingent-paid Sweeper working for less than five hours per day was legally sustainable.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration of her claim for the minimum basic pay applicable to Group-D/MTS employees and consequential benefits, having regard to the nature of duties actually performed by her.

Whether the applicant’s long period of service entitled her to automatic regularization, notwithstanding the alleged absence of a sanctioned post and prescribed recruitment process.

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

It applied the settled principle that long continuation in service, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to regularization where the initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post or through the prescribed recruitment procedure, as recognized in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and relied upon by the respondents.

The Tribunal also referred to the principles concerning casual and contingent labour under Union of India v. Bishambar Dutt and the distinction between minimum-pay entitlement and regular appointment.

The governing principle was that nomenclature such as “part-time” or “contingent-paid” is not conclusive; the actual nature of duties and the availability of sanctioned posts must be examined, although automatic regularization cannot be ordered contrary to recruitment rules and applicable policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim had remained the subject of representations and prolonged litigation and that the impugned order appeared to reject her case primarily because of her part-time designation and alleged limited working hours.

Following its earlier decision in a substantially similar matter, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not mechanically rely on nomenclature without examining the duties actually performed and the availability of sanctioned posts.

At the same time, applying the principle in Uma Devi, it declined to treat long service as conferring an automatic right to regularization, particularly where appointment against a sanctioned post and compliance with prescribed recruitment procedure had not been established.

The applicant’s claim for minimum Group-D/MTS pay was therefore required to be examined in light of the actual duties performed, applicable instructions and judicial precedents, rather than rejected solely on the basis of her part-time status.

The order dated 11 October 2012 was set aside to the extent that it mechanically rejected the applicant’s claim without examining the relevant principles.

The respondents were directed to reconsider her claim for the minimum basic pay applicable to Group-D/MTS employees, with consequential monetary benefits if found admissible, and separately to consider her case for regularization or regular appointment against available and sanctioned posts in accordance with the applicable rules, policy and settled law.

The exercise was directed to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no automatic regularization was granted and there was no order as to costs.