Puducherry HC Rejects 11 Former CM Office Staffers’ Full-Time Casual Job Plea, Directs Preference If Future Need Arises

In brief

The question

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioners’ request for engagement as full-time casual labourers was illegal or unreasonable.

The court held

The Court dismissed the challenge to the rejection as devoid of merit and declined to direct immediate engagement in available vacancies.

It also directed

It disposed of the petition with a direction that the respondents give the petitioners preference for future full-time casual-labour employment if a necessity arises, subject to the Scheme’s requirements.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioners were engaged on 25 November 2016 on a co-terminus basis with the tenure of the Chief Minister, or until their services were no longer required, whichever occurred earlier. Their appointment orders excluded any right to appointment or absorption in government service.

p. 3 · ¶ 2–3

On 20 February 2021, they sought regularisation or, alternatively, engagement as full-time casual labourers. After their services were discontinued with effect from 22 February 2021, they pursued a mandamus petition seeking consideration of their representation; the respondents subsequently rejected their request by an order dated 4 June 2021.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–6

They challenged that rejection under Article 226.

p. 2, prayer

02Issues

i.Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioners’ request for engagement as full-time casual labourers was illegal or unreasonable.

p. 2, prayer · p. 6 · ¶ 12

ii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for engagement as full-time casual labourers in available vacancies, or to preference for such employment if a future need arose.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 13–14

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Puducherry Casual Labourers Scheme notified by G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 27 February 2009.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Under the Scheme, casual labourers engaged for at least eight hours a day are classified as “full-time casual labourers,” while those engaged for less than eight hours are “part-time casual labourers”; other designations are discontinued.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Engagement is subject to the Scheme’s requirements, including notification to the Employment Exchange, Finance Department concurrence and prior Government approval where engagement is considered necessary.

p. 5 · ¶ 8, 11

The Court also noted the Scheme’s prohibition on engaging casual workers to perform Group “C” duties.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The judgment does not identify or apply any specific precedent.

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ original appointments were temporary, co-terminus engagements and were not against sanctioned posts; their appointment terms expressly denied any entitlement to absorption or appointment in government service.

p. 3 · ¶ 2–4

The Court therefore found no basis to require their engagement as full-time casual labourers outside the 2009 Scheme. Any such engagement would have to comply with the Scheme and its approval requirements.

p. 5 · ¶ 10–11 · p. 6 · ¶ 12

Although the rejection challenge failed, the Court considered that the petitioners’ cases could be examined if a future need for casual labourers arose.

p. 6 · ¶ 13