Long-term casual laborers rendering continuous service of over 240 days annually are entitled to consideration for regularization.

The applicant was engaged by the CPWD as a Beldar on a "Hand Receipt" basis in 1990 and subsequently served as a plumber

He claimed continuous service for over 25 years and sought regularization parity with similarly placed employees (e.g., Ishwardas v. UOI)

In a previous litigation cycle (W.P. 4835/2005), the M.P. High Court directed the respondents to consider his case in light of O.M. dated 16/10/2014

The respondents rejected his claim on 11.02.2016, arguing he was engaged via "work orders" under an Assistant Engineer's financial powers (contractual nature), no sanctioned posts existed, and he did not meet the eligibility criteria of the 2014 O.M.

1. Whether the applicant, a casual laborer working continuously since 1990, is entitled to regularization in service

2. Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant’s claim based on technicalities of engagement (Work Order vs. Direct Employment) is legally sustainable

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and mandates regularization for long-serving employees in irregular appointments

It further relied on Ravi Verma v. Union of India (2018) regarding non-discrimination in regularization

Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2024), which critiques the misuse of "temporary" labels to evade employer obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act

The case also invoked DoPT O.M. No. 49014/3/2014-Estt(C) dated 16.10.2014 regarding the grant of temporary status

The Tribunal found that the applicant had rendered continuous service of more than 240 days per year since 1990, a fact not effectively denied by the respondents

It reasoned that failing to grant temporary status earlier was an administrative lapse, not the applicant's fault

Relying on the Jaggo precedent, the Tribunal observed that the Umadevi judgment is often "weaponized" to deny legitimate claims of employees who have served for decades in roles integral to the department

It held that labeling essential, perennial work as "temporary" or "work order" based is a mechanism to avoid social security obligations and violates basic labor principles

Following the precedent set in a similar case (O.A. 200/00392/2017), the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria for regularization as an "irregular" appointee who served for over ten years without the cover of court orders

The Tribunal held that the applicant is eligible for regularization given his continuous service since 1990

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant for regularization against a Group ‘D’ post within 90 days from the receipt of the order