Mere continuance in service based on judicial orders does not entitle regularization.

Ramesh Kumar (applicant in OA No. 816/2016) was initially appointed as a Bearer on an ad-hoc basis on May 10, 1993, for 80 days in a non-statutory canteen of the Central Excise Department, with extensions until October 19, 1994, when his services were discontinued.

He filed OA No. 543/1994, and the Tribunal, vide order dated November 16, 2000, directed his appointment and consideration for regularization.

Following a contempt petition due to non-implementation, Ramesh Kumar was provisionally offered appointment on March 1, 2002, joining on March 8, 2002, subject to the outcome of DBCWP No. 1245/2001 filed by the Union of India against the Tribunal's order.

Buddhi Prakash Verma (applicant in OA No. 817/2016) has similar facts.

The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, vide judgment dated October 4, 2013, in DBCWP No. 1245/2001, quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order dated November 16, 2000, rejecting the applicants' claim for regularization as they were not in service by the cut-off date of October 1, 1991, and the relied-upon circulars were inapplicable.

The High Court, however, observed that the department could sympathetically consider their continuance, if no legal impediment existed, but held that this would not be a precedent.

Subsequently, the respondents terminated Ramesh Kumar's services via notice dated October 28, 2016.

The current applications challenge this termination notice, and the applicants have continued service due to an interim order by the Tribunal dated November 24, 2016.

The respondents contend that the applicants' services were only required for about 1 year, 5 months, and 8 days, and their continued employment was solely due to judicial orders, not departmental need, and the posts in question were abolished as per official memorandum dated January 5, 2024.

1. Whether the termination notice dated October 28, 2016, is arbitrary, contradictory to rules, and against the law of natural justice?

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization of their services and consequential benefits?

3. Whether the High Court's observation for "sympathetic consideration" for continuance in service created a legal right for the applicants?

The court primarily applied the principles regarding regularization of services, specifically relying on DoPT OMs dated January 29, 1992, and March 20, 1997, which stipulated October 1, 1991, as the eligibility cut-off date for regularization of canteen employees.

It also applied the precedent from *Union of India & Ors. vs. Bishmber Dutt* (Civil Appeal Nos. 14528-530 of 1996 - 97 SCC (L&S)), holding that directions to regularize services are illegal if appointments were not on a regular basis according to rules.

Furthermore, the court referred to the Constitutional Bench judgment in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.* (AIR 2006 SC 1806), which established that regularization should be a one-time measure for irregularly appointed persons working ten years or more in duly sanctioned vacant posts without the intervention of court orders.

The court underscored the principle that employers, especially government, cannot be compelled to employ individuals whose services are not required.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' initial appointment was purely ad-hoc for a limited period, without following selection procedures or through an employment exchange, and explicitly stated against regularization.

The court noted that the respondents only "required" the applicants' services for about 1 year, 5 months, and 8 days, and their extended service since 2002 was solely due to judicial interference, specifically the Tribunal's previous order and subsequent interim orders.

The Hon'ble High Court had already quashed the Tribunal's earlier order directing regularization, specifically ruling that the applicants were not eligible for regularization as they were not in service by the cut-off date of October 1, 1991.

Although the High Court had made an observation for "sympathetic consideration" for continuance, the Tribunal clarified that this did not vest any legal right in the applicants, especially since their claim for regularization had already been rejected on merits and law by a higher court.

The Tribunal further found that the work performed by the applicants was neither perennial nor fundamental to the department's functioning, distinguishing it from cases where regularization was directed due to the inherent perennial nature of the work.

The respondents' submission that the canteen posts were abolished and not required further supported the view that the department genuinely did not need their services.

It held that the termination notice dated October 28, 2016, was valid, as the applicants had no legal right to regularization.

The court concluded that the applicants' claim for regularization had already been considered and rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, and their continued employment was a result of judicial intervention rather than departmental need.

It stated that the "sympathetic consideration" suggested by the High Court did not create a legal right for the applicants, particularly given that the department did not require the services in the non-statutory canteen, and the posts had been abolished.

The Tribunal emphasized that no employer, including the government, can be compelled to engage individuals whose services are not required.