Regularization of casual labor requires valid proof of engagement or appointment by a competent authority.

The applicant claimed he was engaged as a part-time casual laborer in April 1996 at the Telephone Exchange, Angarh, Mirzapur

He alleged continuous service for over 17 years until an oral termination on 20.09.2013

The applicant sought regularization and temporary status based on various departmental schemes and a 1989 Supreme Court direction

Following a previous Tribunal order in O.A. No. 1290/2013, the respondents issued an impugned order on 21.11.2013 rejecting his representation

The respondents maintained that a three-member committee found no record of the applicant’s recruitment, attendance, or payment in official acquaintance rolls or vouchers

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to temporary status and regularization based on his alleged service since 1996

2. Whether the rejection order dated 21.11.2013 and the alleged oral termination dated 20.09.2013 are legally sustainable

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It relied on the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989, which requires 240 days of service in a year for temporary status

The court emphasized the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments regarding regularization

It considered the departmental ban on fresh recruitment of casual labor effective from 30.03.1985

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to produce an original appointment letter or valid proof of engagement

While the applicant relied on photocopies of muster rolls and a recommendation from a retired Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), the respondents established that the SDE was not authorized to issue such certificates and was facing disciplinary proceedings for fabrication

The Tribunal observed that the three-member committee's report explicitly stated the applicant was never engaged by the department

The court reasoned that given the 1985 ban on casual labor recruitment, no direction for regularization could be issued without proof of engagement by a competent authority

It distinguished the applicant's reliance on Masan Ali v. Union of India, noting that in that case, the department had previously recognized the engagement, whereas here, the respondents categorically denied any employment relationship

It held that in the absence of authorized documents proving engagement or a formal written termination order, the relief for regularization cannot be granted

The impugned order dated 21.11.2013 was upheld as the applicant failed to establish his status as a departmental employee