Long-serving contractual workers cannot be denied regularisation solely because no sanctioned posts exist.

The 24 applicants worked as frash or mali in the respondents’ department from various dates between 1999 and 2007, initially through a contractor.

In earlier proceedings, the Tribunal directed that they be continued in work while it remained necessary and their conduct was satisfactory, and that their regularisation claims be considered in light of the outcome of the Kiran Pal litigation.

The respondents subsequently paid them amounts equivalent to minimum Group D pay but rejected their claims for regularisation in orders dated 30 April and 1 May 2019, citing the absence of sanctioned posts or vacancies.

They challenged the rejection orders and sought regularisation, alternatively relying on decisions concerning similarly situated workers, and claimed pensionary benefits.

1. Whether the applicants’ prolonged service as frash or mali entitled them to regularisation despite the respondents’ position that no sanctioned posts or vacancies existed.

2. Whether the rejection orders dated 30 April and 1 May 2019 should be set aside and the applicants granted consequential service and pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the DoPT O.M.s dated 7 June 1988 and 11 December 2006 concerning casual employment and regularisation.

It described the 2006 policy as applying to qualified irregular appointees who had served for at least ten years against duly sanctioned vacant posts, possessed the prescribed qualifications, and were not protected by interim court orders.

It also relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) and the Supreme Court authorities cited in the judgment, including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam (2025 INSC 144), Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 998), and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam (2026 INSC 523).

As the Tribunal understood those authorities, the State must not use temporary or contractual labels to perpetuate insecure employment for workers performing essential, recurring functions; Umadevi is not an absolute bar to relief, and the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments must be considered.

The Tribunal further treated prolonged service and the State’s obligation to act fairly as relevant even where the post was not sanctioned.

The respondents relied on the absence of sanctioned frash posts and vacancies, and maintained that the applicants were contractor-engaged rather than direct employees.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the DoPT regularisation policy it discussed concerned sanctioned posts, but concluded that the applicants’ continuous, long-term work was integral to the functioning of the department.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, it held that the respondents could not defeat the claim solely by relying on the form of engagement or the absence of sanctioned posts, particularly where the work was continuing and the applicants had served for a long period.

The Tribunal did not separately analyse the respondents’ limitation objection under Section 21 of the Act in its stated reasoning.

It directed the respondents to regularise the applicants with effect from their respective dates of joining and to grant pension, gratuity, and other admissible retiral benefits.

The exercise, including calculation and payment of pensionary and other dues, was to be completed within twelve weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.