Long-term engagement for perennial work mandates regularization; *Uma Devi* cannot shield exploitative casual employment.

The 133 applicants were engaged as casual laborers by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) between 1997 and 1999 to address administrative exigencies in the North East-II circle

They performed duties equivalent to Group-D employees and remained in service for over two decades

Although BSNL had implemented a "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme" in 1989 (extended to those recruited up to 01.08.1998), the applicants were excluded from regularization

Previous litigation included OA No. 85/2013, where the Tribunal directed consideration of their claims, but BSNL rejected them in 2015

The respondents contended that the applicants did not meet the "10-year continuous service" criteria as of the 2006 Uma Devi judgment and that the Tribunal cannot direct the framing of a regularization scheme

1. Whether the continuous engagement of casual laborers for several decades, despite the ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, creates a right to regularization when the work is of a perennial nature

2. Whether the respondents can use the Uma Devi judgment as a shield to deny regularization to employees who have been exploited through long-term adhocism

Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], which permitted a one-time regularization measure for irregular appointments where employees served for over 10 years in sanctioned posts

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [(2017) 3 SCC 410], which clarified that Uma Devi does not denude the State of its power to frame regularization schemes

Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65], holding that the State must create sanctioned posts if the need for work is perennial

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), which established that Uma Devi cannot be used to justify exploitative long-term casual engagement

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicants did not strictly satisfy the 1989 Scheme's cutoff or the specific 10-year window mentioned in Uma Devi, the respondents continued to engage them for decades after the 2006 judgment

This continuous engagement serves as evidence that the applicants' services were indispensable and the work was perennial

The court rejected the respondents' defense that the appointments were "illegal" due to a ban, noting that the authorities who engaged them were never penalized, thus characterizing the appointments as "irregular" at most

Applying the ratio from Jaggo and Dharam Singh, the Tribunal held that a "constitutional employer" cannot balance budgets by exploiting casual laborers while sidestepping fair engagement practices

Following Nihal Singh, the Tribunal dismissed the lack of "sanctioned posts" as a defense, stating that the need for such posts is a rational assessment the State must make for long-term functions

The court found that the applicants' long-term service ripened into a right for regularization

The respondents were directed to regularize the services of the 133 applicants with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate orders within three months of receipt of the order

No costs were awarded