Long-serving temporary employees performing perennial duties must have their regularization claims reconsidered.

The applicant was engaged as a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) in the Directorate of Disaster Management, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, initially for stevedoring work from 1 July 2010, after being called for and qualifying in a trade test and possessing the requisite educational qualification, driving licence, and employment-exchange registration.

He asserted that, from the commencement of his engagement, he was in fact performing the duties of a Light Vehicle Driver, including emergency and vehicle-maintenance work.

Although 22 posts, including a post of Light Vehicle Driver, were approved for the Directorate in 2012, the applicant was not regularly appointed against the post.

The applicant relied on the regular appointment of similarly situated DRMs in the Secretariat, the Deputy Resident Commissioner’s Office at New Delhi, and the Directorate of Transport, and sought equivalent treatment, approval of the proposal dated 13 July 2017 for his regular appointment, and appointment as Light Vehicle Driver.

The respondents contended that he had been engaged only as a DRM, not against a sanctioned post, and that the relevant posts were subsequently abolished, revived on 28 November 2023, and thereafter proposed to be filled through common recruitment.

The respondents also stated that the applicant had received wages at 1/30th of the minimum of the applicable pay level with dearness allowance pursuant to later administrative orders.

The Tribunal noted that a vacancy notification for two Godown Keeper posts and one Light Vehicle Driver post had been issued in 2017, but the final result had not been disclosed.

It further noted that the applicant had continued working for a substantial period in work of a perennial nature.

1. Whether the applicant, having performed the duties of Light Vehicle Driver for a prolonged period as a DRM, was entitled to treatment similar to DRMs who had been granted regular appointment in other establishments of the Administration.

2. Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s claim for regularization in view of his long and continuous service, the perennial nature of the work, and the availability or subsequent revival of sanctioned posts.

3. Whether the principles governing regularization of long-serving temporary or casual employees, particularly those discussed in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Jaggo v. Union of India, applied to the applicant’s case.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was filed.

It considered the constitutional principle that regular public employment should ordinarily follow a lawful recruitment process and that “backdoor” appointments cannot be regularized as a matter of course, as recognized in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

At the same time, relying on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, the Tribunal emphasized that long-serving temporary or casual employees performing essential and perennial work should not be denied consideration for regularization merely by describing their appointments as temporary or contractual; the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments must be respected, and eligible employees appointed against sanctioned posts may warrant regularization as a one-time measure.

The Tribunal also applied the principle of non-arbitrariness and equal treatment in public employment in considering the applicant’s reliance on regularization granted to similarly situated DRMs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had worked continuously from 2010 onwards and that the respondents did not dispute the substantial duration of his service.

His duties were of a recurring and perennial nature, and he had performed work connected with driving and emergency disaster-management operations.

Although the respondents relied on the absence of engagement against a sanctioned post and on the subsequent abolition and revival of posts, the Tribunal considered it significant that sanctioned posts had existed, a Light Vehicle Driver vacancy had been notified in 2017, and the applicant’s claim had not been finally addressed.

The Tribunal also criticized the respondents for continuing to engage personnel on casual or ad hoc terms instead of filling available posts through regular recruitment, while simultaneously relying on Uma Devi to reject regularization.

In light of Jaggo, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s long service and performance of perennial duties required a fresh, lawful consideration of his regularization claim, though it did not itself direct automatic regular appointment.

The respondents were directed to complete the entire exercise within four months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal did not directly order regular appointment or grant the claimed appointment as Light Vehicle Driver.

No order as to costs was made.