Prolonged Engagement in Perennial Duties Precludes Denying Regularization Based on Procedural Irregularities or Vacancy Absence

The applicant was engaged as a part-time casual labourer by BSNL in 1998, converted to full-time in 2003, and subsequently appointed as a "Regular Mazdoor" on 03.08.2007

Following the Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, BSNL kept his regularization in abeyance via order dated 31.08.2007

A similarly situated employee, Raja Ram, obtained a favorable order from the Tribunal in 2014, which BSNL implemented

When the applicant sought parity, the respondents passed impugned orders on 08.09.2023 and 08.02.2024, cancelling his regularization on the grounds that his appointment was against non-sanctioned posts and violated the Uma Devi mandate

1. Whether the applicant's case is similarly situated to the precedent of Raja Ram v. BSNL & Ors.

2. Whether the respondents' invocation of the Uma Devi judgment to cancel the applicant's regularization was justified under the current legal landscape

Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the right to equality and non-discrimination

The "one-time measure" regularization principle from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) as clarified in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari

Modern interpretation of regularization from Jaggo v. UOI (2024) and Vinod Kumar v. UOI (2024), which hold that procedural formalities or the absence of a sanctioned post cannot be used to deny regularization to employees who have performed perennial duties for substantial periods

Precedent from Pawan Kumar v. UOI (2026) regarding the entitlement of similarly situated daily-wage workers to relief granted in related cases

The Tribunal found that the applicant and Raja Ram shared near-identical service profiles: both started as part-time workers, became full-time in 2003, were regularized in 2007, and had their orders stayed simultaneously.

Denying the applicant benefits provided to Raja Ram violated Article 14.

Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (e.g., Jaggo) shifts the focus from strict procedural adherence to a "humane resolution" for long-serving employees.

Where work is of a perennial nature and engagement is for a substantial length of time, a presumption of a vacant post arises.

BSNL’s claim that there were no sanctioned posts was insufficient to override the applicant’s long-standing, unblemished service.

The OA was allowed; the impugned orders dated 08.09.2023 and 08.02.2024 were quashed, and respondents were directed to treat the applicant as a "Regular Mazdoor" effective from 07.08.2007 with consequential benefits and back wages.