Over-age former railway casual labourers are entitled to compensation in lieu of regularisation.

The applicants were engaged as casual labourers by the Northern Railway between 1974 and 1977.

They claimed continuous service sufficient to qualify for temporary status and alleged that they were retrenched in 1982 without compliance with the applicable service rules and labour-law protections.

They pursued multiple proceedings seeking consideration for regularization, including earlier applications before the Tribunal and proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court.

In 2020, following screening, the Railway rejected their claims because they had crossed the age of superannuation.

In this application, they challenged that rejection and sought regularization-related benefits or, alternatively, compensation, relying on relief granted to similarly situated former casual labourers.

1. Whether the applicants, whose claims for absorption or regularization were rejected in screening because they had crossed the age of superannuation, were entitled to appointment or regularization.

2. Whether, if appointment or regularization was no longer practicable, the applicants were entitled to compensation on the basis of relief granted to similarly situated casual labourers.

The applicants relied on paragraph 2001(b)(i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, asserting that completion of 120 days’ service entitled them to temporary status; they also alleged non-compliance with Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Tribunal did not decide those claims by independently applying those provisions. Its operative reasoning followed the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 Others v. Union of India and 4 Others, Writ A No. 11282 of 2018, which declined appointment for former casual labourers who were beyond the prescribed age and had been out of employment for decades, but awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The Supreme Court subsequently enhanced the compensation in that matter from ₹5 lakh to ₹8 lakh in Ram Abhilash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had participated in the 2020 screening and that their claims were rejected because they were over-aged.

It did not direct their appointment or determine that they had an enforceable right to regularization.

Instead, it treated them as similarly situated to the former casual labourers in Ramesh Chandra Bari and Ram Abhilash Singh, whose appointment claims were declined but who received compensation.

On that basis, the Tribunal considered the same compensatory relief appropriate for these applicants.

The applicants’ bank particulars were to be supplied within ten days; any payment delay beyond the prescribed period would attract interest at the GPF rate until realization.

No costs were awarded.