Regularization is unavailable to casual laborers whose engagement ceased decades prior and who lack continuity of service.

The applicant was engaged as a Group D worker on a casual basis by the General Manager, Rourkela Telecom District, in March 1995.

His engagement was terminated on October 31, 1997.

Following several representations and previous litigations, the respondents officially rejected his claim for regularization via an order dated November 18, 2015.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the 1997 disengagement order and the 2015 rejection order, further praying for reinstatement and regularization.

He relied on a Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in Manoranjan Nayak Ors. v. UOI Ors. regarding the regularization of casual laborers.

The respondents contested the claim, stating the applicant was never engaged by a competent authority and had been out of service since 1997, raising the defense of delay and laches.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement and regularization after a gap of approximately 20 years since his disengagement in 1997.

2. Whether the legal principles regarding the regularization of continuing casual laborers, as established in Manoranjan Nayak and various Supreme Court precedents, are applicable to a disengaged worker.

The Tribunal considered the principles of regularization for casual laborers as established by the Full Bench of the CAT in Manoranjan Nayak Ors. v. UOI Ors. (OA No. 654/2015).

It further referenced the restrictive application of regularization as defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024), and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026).

These precedents generally emphasize that regularization is considered for those in "long continuance" of service or those currently engaged under specific schemes.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s case from the cited precedents and the Full Bench decision in Manoranjan Nayak.

The Bench observed that the beneficial directions in the cited cases applied to individuals who were either still in service or had continued on a casual basis for a significant duration.

In contrast, the applicant’s engagement was dispensed with on October 31, 1997, and he had not been in service for nearly two decades prior to the filing of the OA.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not refute the fact of his long-term absence from engagement during the hearing.

Consequently, the Bench reasoned that since the applicant was no longer in service, the legal framework intended for the regularization of existing casual staff could not be extended to mandate his reinstatement and subsequent regularization.

The Tribunal dismissed the OA and disposed of all pending Miscellaneous Applications with no order as to costs.