Long-term temporary engagement in perennial roles against sanctioned posts necessitates regularization of service.

The deceased husband of the applicant, Late Ajoy Kumar Sardar, was initially engaged as a Gardener on a contract basis on May 3, 1985

His service was extended periodically, and he later served as a Lift Attendant on a job-contract basis from 1998

On June 1, 2010, the respondents approved his service as a "Casual Worker" in a regular pay scale, and he was subsequently granted "Temporary Status" effective June 1, 2011

The applicant (the employee's widow) sought regularization of his service from 1985 to ensure entitlement to service and pensionary benefits

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the deceased had not participated in previous absorption schemes or recruitment processes for Laboratory Attendants and that there was no documentation proving continuous service from 1985 to 2010

The matter was reheard following a remand from the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, which had set aside a previous Tribunal order on procedural grounds

1. Whether the deceased employee’s long-term engagement in a perennial nature of work entitles him to regularization despite the respondents' reliance on his non-participation in specific recruitment tests.

2. Whether the "Temporary Status" granted in 2011 should be converted to regular service for the purpose of granting terminal benefits.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], which distinguishes between regular and irregular appointments

This was interpreted through recent precedents including Shripal Another v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad [(2025) Live Law SC 153] and Jaggo v. Union of India Others (2024), which held that the Uma Devi judgment cannot be used as a "shield" to justify the long-term exploitation of temporary employees performing essential and perennial duties

The court also cited Govt. of Puducherry v. K. Velajagan (2025), emphasizing that employees should not suffer due to an employer’s failure to conduct legitimate recruitment processes

The Tribunal observed that the deceased had performed duties of a perennial nature against sanctioned posts for a significant duration

While the applicant could not provide documentary proof of uninterrupted service since 1985, the Tribunal found it undisputed that the respondents themselves recognized him as a Casual Worker in 2010 and granted him Temporary Status in 2011

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ argument that the deceased’s failure to apply for a "Laboratory Attendant" post precluded regularization, noting that the claim was for the regularization of his existing casual service, not a specific new appointment

Applying the Shripal doctrine, the Tribunal reasoned that labeling essential work as "temporary" for decades constitutes a misclassification that deprives workers of dignity and security

Consequently, allowing the employee to retire (or his estate to be deprived) without pensionary benefits after such lengthy service was deemed a "travesty of justice"

The Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize the services of the original applicant effective from June 1, 2010 (the date he was identified as Casual Labour), in light of his perennial duties against a sanctioned post

This regularization must be completed within three months to facilitate the release of consequential benefits

No order as to costs was made