Part-time workers rendering long-term essential services are entitled to regularization over hyper-technical departmental objections.

The applicants were engaged as part-time workers (Safai Karamchari and Watermen) by the Railway Mail Service (RMS), Department of Posts, on various dates in 1999

Despite serving continuously for over 26 years, their requests for regularization were rejected by the respondents via an order dated 19.05.2025

The respondents contended that the applicants did not meet the criteria for regularization because they were part-time workers, were not appointed against sanctioned posts, and did not complete 10 years of service by the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 established in the Uma Devi judgment

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking quashment of the rejection order and a direction for regularization

1. Whether the applicants, having rendered over two decades of continuous part-time service, are entitled to regularization despite not being initially appointed against sanctioned posts

2. Whether the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 for regularization is absolute or if subsequent service can be considered in light of recent judicial pronouncements

The court primarily applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, while subject to the clarifications in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 3 SCT 678, which allows for a "one-time measure" of regularization for employees who have completed 10 years of service even if the exercise was not undertaken by the authorities at the time

It further relied on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034) and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024 (9) SCC 327), which mandate that government departments should lead by example and consider regularization even after the 2006 cut-off

The court also invoked the protections of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India against exploitative labor practices

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' technical objections, noting that the applicants had provided essential services (cleanliness and amenities) for over 25 years, which cannot be characterized as a mere "stop-gap" arrangement

The court reasoned that maintaining workers on a part-time basis for decades to perform critical functions without security of tenure is "exploitative in nature" and denies workers' dignity and right to livelihood

Applying the reasoning from M.L. Kesari, the Tribunal found that the failure of the department to create sanctioned posts for essential duties should not prejudice the workers who have served the institution's needs

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that recent Supreme Court and High Court rulings have interpreted the 10-year service requirement more flexibly, allowing for regularization if the employee completed the decade of service after 2006

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ long-standing performance created a legitimate expectation of regularization

It held that the applicants are entitled to regularization of their services from the due date with all consequential benefits

The respondents were directed to complete the regularization exercise within two months of receiving the order

No order was made as to costs