Long-serving casual laborers in irregular appointments merit consideration for regularization despite procedural non-compliance.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer under the Commandant, 42 Coy ASC (Sup) in 1992

He claimed continuous service and sought regularization or grant of temporary status based on DoPT Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 07.06.1988 and 10.09.1993

In 2012–2013, the respondents conducted a fresh recruitment process for the post of Chowkidar/Labour, appointing private respondents (Nos. 5 to 12), whom the applicant alleged were junior to him

The applicant challenged the recruitment notifications dated 16.02.2013 and 25.09.2013 and sought directions for his own regularization

The respondents contested the claim, stating the applicant was engaged on a need-based basis, was not against a sanctioned post, and was overage (31 years at initial engagement) for the 2013 direct recruitment, which had a maximum age limit of 25 years

1. Whether the recruitment and appointment of private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 were illegal and liable to be quashed for ignoring the applicant’s seniority

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization or the grant of temporary status based on his long duration of service and the nature of duties performed

The court primarily relied on the DoPT O.Ms dated 07.06.1988 and 10.09.1993 regarding the regularization of casual labourers

It further applied the principles of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and provides for one-time regularization of employees in irregular appointments who served for over ten years in sanctioned posts

The court also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which cautioned against the exploitation of temporary employees and the "misuse of temporary labels" to evade long-term obligations

Regarding the challenge to the 2012-2013 recruitment, the Tribunal found that the applicant was 31 years old at the time of his initial engagement in 1991-92 and thus failed to meet the age criteria (25 years) specified in the 2013 notification; consequently, he had no right to be considered for those specific vacancies

Regarding regularization, the Tribunal examined "Loan Issue Vouchers" from 1995 to 2013, which proved the applicant was entrusted with official store-handling duties

The Tribunal noted that while the respondents labeled the work "intermittent," the contemporaneous records suggested a degree of continuity and recurring need

Following the rationale in Jaggo, the Tribunal observed that the intent of Uma Devi is often subverted to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees

However, acknowledging that casual engagement does not confer an automatic right to regularization, the Tribunal determined the claim required a formal administrative review

However, it disposed of the Original Application by directing the competent authority to consider the applicant’s claim for temporary status or regularization

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order in light of the observations in Jaggo v. Union of India within three months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded