Part-time casual engagement for two hours daily does not confer right to regularization.

The applicant, Ishwar Chand Saini, was initially appointed as a Farrash vide Order No. UP-Athi-Adhi-Vsi/Farrash/50 dated 09.10.1990 by the Sub Record Officer, Varanasi.

His services were orally terminated in December 1990.

Subsequently, he was re-engaged as a part-time Farrash (part-time casual labour) for two hours on 20.11.1997, receiving daily wages through vouchers, and has been continuously working since.

Respondent No. 5, Rakeshwar Tiwari, was also initially appointed as an Extra Departmental Mail Man (EDMM) vide appointment order dated 20.08.1990.

He was regularized in service in the Group 'D' cadre on 03.06.1996.

The applicant previously filed O.A. No. 1844/2010, which was disposed of on 12.07.2022, directing him to file a fresh representation.

The applicant filed a detailed representation on 18.07.2022.

The respondents rejected his claim for regularization and pension/family pension vide order dated 25.07.2022.

The respondents stated that the applicant was illegally engaged in 1990, which was quashed, and his subsequent engagement was as a part-time casual labourer for two hours; thus, he did not fulfill regularization criteria which required temporary status and engagement on or before 01.09.1993.

The applicant's duty hours were increased to six hours per day with effect from 01.09.2024, post the impugned order.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, rejecting the applicant's claim for regularization, suffers from arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity?

2. Whether the applicant is similarly situated to Respondent No. 5 for the purpose of seeking regularization, thereby entitling him to regularization based on continuous long service?

3. Whether the applicant's subsequent enhancement of duty hours retroactively entitles him to regularization as of the date of the impugned order?

The court applied the principle that regularization is granted based on seniority-cum-fitness from among casual labourers who have been conferred temporary status and were engaged on or before a prescribed cut-off date (01.09.1993 in this case).

It also applied the principle that the equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India applies among equals and cannot be invoked where factual foundations differ materially.

Further, the court reiterated that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the basis of long continuation in service, particularly when the engagement is purely part-time and casual.

The court considered Rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which states that only regular employees are entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits.

The court also distinguished the judgment in Shyam Lal Shukla vs. Union of India (SLP No. 12664/2012) on the grounds that the applicant in that case had been conferred temporary status.

The court analyzed the applicant's claim against the specific rules and factual matrix.

It noted that the applicant's initial engagement in 1990 was quashed and he was subsequently re-engaged as a part-time casual labourer for two hours per day from 1997.

This meant he was not conferred temporary status and was engaged after the cut-off date of 01.09.1993 for regularization, thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria for regularization under applicable Rules/Guidelines.

The court found that Respondent No. 5 was appointed to a different post (EDMM) and was regularized in 1996, before the applicant's re-engagement as part-time casual labour, establishing a different factual matrix.

Therefore, the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 was not applicable as the two individuals were not similarly situated.

The court explicitly stated that the subsequent increase in the applicant's duty hours in 2024 (after the impugned order) could not retroactively validate his regularization claim at the time the order was passed, as his engagement remained part-time and casual until then.

The judgment in Shyam Lal Shukla was distinguished because the applicant in that case had temporary status, which the present applicant lacked.

The applicant's claim for regularization was dismissed, as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, was not similarly situated to Respondent No. 5, and did not acquire a vested right to regularization merely through long continuation as a part-time casual labourer.

Consequently, no interference was warranted in this Original Application, and it was dismissed.