Long-term casual employment for perennial work mandates service regularization despite lack of initial formal recruitment.

The applicants are Daily Rated Mazdoors/Labourers working under the Andaman & Nicobar Command, Ministry of Defence, for periods exceeding 15 years, some since 1990.

They sought regularization of their services based on DoPT O.M. dated 11.12.2006 and the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

Despite continuous service on a "No Work No Pay" basis and being included in seniority lists, the respondents rejected their claims for regularization via speaking orders dated 09.02.2023, 24.09.2014, and 29.12.2014.

The respondents argued that the applicants were engaged for purely casual assignments not against sanctioned posts and were partially managed through outsourcing contracts.

1. Whether the long-term continuous engagement of the applicants as daily rated workers constitutes perennial work entitling them to regularization despite their initial "casual" status.

2. Whether the respondents’ act of denying regularization while continuing to utilize the applicants' services for over 15 years is legally sustainable in light of recent judicial precedents.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which allows for a one-time measure for irregular employees who have served over 10 years.

It further relied on recent Supreme Court mandates in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025), which hold that long-term continuous service indicates the perennial nature of work and that the use of "temporary" or "outsourcing" labels cannot be used as a shield to evade the obligation of regular employment.

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents classified the work as "casual," the fact that applicants remained in service for over 15 years establishes that the nature of the work was perennial.

The court noted that the respondents never discontinued the applicants' services, which mirrors the exploitative "misuse of temporary labels" criticized in Jaggo.

The Tribunal reasoned that the distinction between regular and irregular appointments (from Uma Devi) should not prevent regularization when an employee has worked without break for a significant duration, as such longevity indicates a functional need for regular posts.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the respondents' reliance on the "casual" nature of the job to be a legal facade to deny benefits.

The court held that the respondents must consider the perennial nature of the duties performed, waive strict procedural criteria regarding educational qualifications where applicable (as per the precedent for similarly situated employees), and complete the regularization process within six months.

All O.A.s were disposed of in favor of the applicants with no order as to costs.