Prolonged continuous service justifies regularization of casual laborers regardless of "part-time" labels or procedural irregularities.

The Respondents were engaged as casual laborers in the Customs Department, Jodhpur, around 1992.

They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2005 seeking regularization and challenging a tender for outsourcing services.

The CAT initially dismissed the O.A. in 2006, but the High Court remanded the matter in 2017 for fresh adjudication.

During the remanded proceedings, internal departmental communications (dated 2014 and 2015) were produced, showing that the Respondents had worked full-time (8 hours daily) since 1992 and met the criteria for temporary status under the 1993 Scheme.

The CAT, vide order dated 28.02.2019, directed the Petitioners to grant temporary status and consider the Respondents for regularization.

The Union of India challenged this order before the High Court, asserting that the Respondents were mere part-time workers and ineligible for the 1993 Scheme.

1. Whether the Respondents, despite being labeled as "part-time workers," were entitled to the grant of temporary status and consideration for regularization under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of 1993.

2. Whether the claim for regularization remains sustainable for employees who voluntarily left the service during the pendency of the litigation.

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, which confers temporary status on casual laborers in employment as of 01.09.1993 who rendered 206–240 days of continuous service.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which permits the one-time regularization of "irregular" (as opposed to "illegal") appointments where employees have served for over 10 years.

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) 1034 INSC, which holds that "surface labels" like "part-time" should be ignored if the workers performed essential, continuous, and regular duties akin to sanctioned posts for decades.

The Court observed that Petitioner-Department’s own internal records from 2014 and 2015 explicitly stated that the Respondents had worked full 8-hour days and had completed the requisite service period as of 01.09.1993.

Distinguishing between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, the Court noted that the Department itself conceded there was no irregularity in the initial engagement process.

Applying Jaggo, the Court reasoned that since the Respondents had rendered over 30 years of unblemished service, the Department’s reliance on the "part-time" label to deny benefits was a misapplication of Uma Devi.

Regarding Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Court found that they had left the job in 2009, thereby severing the master-servant relationship and making any prospective claim to regularization infructuous.

The Court dismissed the writ petition regarding Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, upholding the CAT’s order for their regularization. Regarding Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petition was partly allowed; while they were entitled to the benefits of the CAT’s order for the period they actually served, such benefits were restricted and "confined only up to the year 2009".