Regularisation parity for ex-casual labourers is conditional on High Court outcome and live-register verification.

The applicants, former casual labourers of the N.F. Railway, sought regularisation in Group-D posts, contending that their names appeared in the Railway’s Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register and that similarly situated workers had been regularised

The respondents rejected their claim by speaking order dated 20 July 2020, stating that the applicants had not been engaged or discharged before 1 January 1981 and had not applied for registration within the time prescribed under the Railway Board’s guidelines

The applicants challenged that order, relying in particular on the Tribunal’s decision in Haren Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 37/2022, which had directed regularisation on the basis of a 16 March 2004 report.

The respondents stated that the order in O.A. No. 37/2022 had been stayed by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6250/2024

Whether the applicants were entitled to have the rejection order dated 20 July 2020 set aside and to receive regularisation and appointment to Group-D posts on the basis of the relief granted to similarly situated workers in O.A. No. 37/2022.

Whether the applicants’ entitlement depended on the outcome of the pending writ petition and verification that their names appeared in the Railway’s Live Register or casual labour records.

The Tribunal referred to Railway Board guidelines dated 4 March 1987, which provided an opportunity for ex-casual labourers to apply for inclusion in the Live/Supplementary Casual Labour Register, and the Board’s special drive dated 9 October 1998 for regularisation of ex-casual labourers borne on those registers against regular Group-D vacancies.

It also considered its earlier orders, including O.A. No. 79/1996 and O.A. No. 37/2022, and the Gauhati High Court’s order dated 29 November 2024 staying the order in O.A. No. 37/2022.

No statutory provision or independent legal test was expressly applied; the Tribunal made the applicants’ possible entitlement conditional on the outcome of the pending writ petition and verification of their registration in the relevant Railway records

Because the order granting relief in O.A. No. 37/2022 was under challenge and stayed by the High Court, the Tribunal did not treat that decision as presently establishing the applicants’ entitlement.

Instead, it directed that if the writ petition were dismissed and benefits were granted to the similarly situated workers, the present applicants’ cases should also be considered after verifying whether their names appeared in the Live Register or casual labour records.

The Tribunal stated that absence of their names from those records would indicate that they had been engaged through a contractor or outsourcing arrangement, in which case they would not be entitled to the same benefits.

It directed that, if the pending writ petition were dismissed and the similarly situated workers received the claimed benefits, the applicants’ cases be considered for the same benefits after verification of their names in the Railway’s relevant registers; if their names were not recorded, they would not qualify on that basis.

No costs were ordered, and any pending M.A. was also disposed of.