Regularization and temporary status determined from actual full-time service commencement, not earlier part-time claims.

The applicant, Ghasi Ram, was initially appointed as a part-time casual labourer (CP Mali) on 25.03.1991, for 7 hours daily but claims to have performed full-time duties, including cooking and attendant work in the inspection quarter, effectively working 8 hours a day from the beginning.

He contends that despite departmental instructions allowing for conversion to full-time casual labourer status, this was delayed until 2003, causing financial loss.

The applicant was granted temporary status in 2004 and regularized as MTS in 2018 after 25 years.

The respondents, however, state that the applicant's duties as Attendant-cum-Khasama were combined with his gardener duties only on 08.05.2003, and he was allowed full-time wages from 16.05.2003.

Consequently, temporary status was granted from 16.05.2004, after one year of continuous full-time service, as per Directorate Letter No. 45-95/87-SPB-1 dated 12.04.1991.

He was later appointed as MTS on the basis of selection-cum-seniority.

The applicant filed a representation dated 19.08.2019, seeking reconsideration of his service from an earlier date.

The respondents claim no such representation was found.

Crucially, the order dated 20.02.2006, which allowed full-time wages from 16.05.2003, was never objected to or challenged by the applicant.

1. Whether the respondents should be commanded to reconsider the applicant's service as a full-time casual labourer from 1993, grant temporary status from 1994, and consequently regularize him as Group-D with all benefits.

2. Whether respondent No. 4 should be directed to consider the applicant's pending representation dated 19.08.2019.

The court primarily referred to Directorate Letter No. 45-14/92-SPB-I dated 16.09.1992, which directed that part-time casual labourers working for 5 hours or more could be examined for conversion to full-time by readjustment or combination of duties.

It also cited Directorate Letter No. 45-95/87-SPB-1 dated 12.04.1991, which states that temporary status is granted only to a casual labourer who renders one year of continuous service as a full-time casual labourer.

The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, sections 20 and 21, regarding exhaustion of departmental remedies, were also mentioned by the respondents.

The Court noted that the applicant was initially appointed as a part-time gardener.

While the applicant claimed to have worked full-time from 1991, the official record shows his duties were combined to make him a full-time casual labourer only from 16.05.2003, via Memo dated 08.05.2003, and full-time wages were subsequently allowed from this date by Memo dated 20.02.2006.

The court found that this 2006 order, which fixed his full-time status from 16.05.2003, was not challenged by the applicant.

Based on the official date of commencement of full-time service (16.05.2003), the temporary status granted on 16.05.2004, after one year of full-time service, was deemed correct according to DG Posts Letter No. 45-95/87-SPB-1 dated 12.04.1991.

Therefore, the applicant's request to reconsider his service as full-time from 1993 and grant temporary status from 1994 lacked basis in the official records and unchallenged orders.

However, concerning the applicant's representation dated 19.08.2019, despite the respondents' claim of non-receipt, the court directed its consideration.

The relief sought by the applicant in para 8.1, requesting reconsideration of his service as a full-time casual labourer from 1993 and grant of Temporary Status from 1994, with consequential regularization as Group-D, was rejected.

The court held that the official records clearly established his full-time status from 16.05.2003 and temporary status from 16.05.2004, based on unchallenged orders.

However, the court allowed relief clause 8.2, directing the respondents/competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's representation dated 19.08.2019 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, and to communicate the same to the applicant forthwith.