Regularization of long-term casual workers is mandatory, even requiring supernumerary posts.

The applicants, fifteen individuals, were engaged as Part Time Casual Mazdoors (labourers) by the Department of Posts, Government of India, specifically in the office of S.R.O. RMS 'N' Division, Bhubaneswar, since 1994.

They performed essential, daily, and continuous tasks over three decades, akin to sanctioned posts, and no other personnel were engaged for these tasks during their tenure.

Despite previous orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Orissa High Court, including one upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pampana Appalaraju Vs. Post Master General and another, their claim for regularization was rejected by the respondents via an order dated April 9, 2025.

The applicants contended that their engagements were not sporadic or temporary but recurrent and regular, leading to a legitimate expectation of regularization for post-retirement life compensation, aligning with Article 21 of the Constitution.

Whether the order dated April 9, 2025, rejecting the applicants' claim for regularization, should be quashed.

Whether the respondents should be directed to regularize the services of the applicants as full-time casual workers from 1994, with all consequential benefits, including creation of supernumerary posts if needed.

The court primarily applied the principle that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, ensuring uniformity and certainty in justice administration under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.

Key precedents cited and applied include Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between illegal and irregular appointments, with irregular engagements potentially eligible for regularization.

The court also heavily relied on Jaggo v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which quashed termination orders for part-time casual laborers and directed regularization, emphasizing continuous service for post-retiral benefits.

Additionally, Dharam Singh & Others v. State of U.P & Another (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025) and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129, reinforced the direction for regularization, even recommending the creation of supernumerary posts if no vacancies exist.

These cases collectively established that "ad hocism" and prolonged temporary employment for perennial tasks violate Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and that the State, as a constitutional employer, has a higher responsibility to ensure fair and lawful engagement practices.

The court found absolute force in the applicants' submissions, noting the continuous, unblemished service rendered by them to the department over extensive periods, despite being labeled as "part-time casual laborers".

The respondents' argument that the applicants were not engaged through regular recruitment processes or against sanctioned posts, and that recruitment rules had changed, was countered by the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The court highlighted the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), and Bhola Nath (supra), which collectively establish a principle favoring the regularization of individuals working on daily wage, casual, part-time casual, ad hoc, or contractual bases for many years.

Specifically, the Jaggo (supra) case, where similar part-time casual laborers were regularized despite earlier dismissals by lower courts, directly informed the Tribunal's decision.

The court emphasized that Umadevi (supra) could not be used to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism" where work is permanent, and that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot balance budgets by denying basic rights to those performing essential functions.

The persistent denial of regularization, despite the indispensable nature and long duration of the applicants' work, was deemed contrary to the established legal principles and constitutional mandates of fairness and equity.

The respondents were commanded to issue compliance orders for the regularization of the applicants' services within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order, on the same terms and conditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), and Bhola Nath (supra).

The court affirmed that the law laid down by the Supreme Court on regularization of long-term temporary workers is binding.