Long-serving casual labourer’s regularisation must be reconsidered upon submission of acquittal documents.

The applicant was engaged as a part-time casual labourer in 1986 and thereafter worked full-time as a casual labourer/Nursing Orderly.

Following two earlier oral terminations, the Tribunal ordered his reinstatement in OA No. 429/1990 and OA No. 211/2008; he was thereafter continued in service.

A Screening Committee in 2003 recommended him for absorption as a Sweeper/Chowkidar, subject to pre-appointment formalities and educational qualifications, but he was not absorbed because Criminal Case No. 3517/1992 was pending and police verification was unavailable.

After a further oral termination in 2017, he sought reinstatement, back wages, and consideration for regularisation.

During the hearing, his counsel submitted that the criminal case had concluded in acquittal.

1. Whether the applicant’s case for regularisation and consequential benefits should be reconsidered in light of the Screening Committee recommendation and the asserted conclusion of the criminal case in acquittal.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate reinstatement, back wages, or other relief arising from the 2017 oral termination.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation in accordance with applicable law, existing rules, and the Screening Committee’s recommendations.

The applicant relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari in support of regularisation; the respondents relied on Umadevi against any automatic right to regularisation.

The Tribunal did not decide the application of those precedents or state that the applicant had an automatic right to regularisation; it ordered reconsideration on the stated materials and applicable rules.

The Tribunal treated the pending criminal case and the absence of police verification as the impediment to the applicant’s non-absorption, while noting that the respondents had not produced an adverse police verification report and had continued his engagement during the earlier proceedings.

Because the alleged acquittal was advanced by counsel but supporting documents were not before the Tribunal, it required the applicant first to provide the final judgment or status report.

It then left the merits of regularisation and consequential benefits to the respondents’ reasoned decision under the applicable rules and Screening Committee recommendation.

It directed the applicant to submit, within two weeks of receiving the certified order, a representation with documents establishing the outcome of Criminal Case No. 3517/1992.

The respondents were directed to decide the representation, including the claims for regularisation and consequential benefits, by a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receipt.