Regularization requires claimants to establish continuous service through credible documentary evidence satisfying prescribed eligibility parameters.

The applicant, a recognized union representing contract laborers, sought regularization of services for workers engaged in coal and ash handling jobs in the Kharagpur Division of South Eastern Railway since 1984

Following a decade of litigation, including multiple Original Applications (OAs) and a Writ Petition (WPCT 243 of 2024), the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta directed the respondents on December 3, 2024, to reconsider the claims if the laborers produced documents satisfying four parameters for regularization

The respondents formed a four-member Screening Committee which scrutinized the documents of 58 petitioners and issued a speaking order on August 1, 2025, rejecting the claims because the laborers failed to provide credible proof of 10 years of continuous service

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging the authorities failed to specifically ask for the required documents after the High Court order

1. Whether the respondent authorities were mandated to specifically demand additional documents from the applicants following the High Court’s order dated December 3, 2024

2. Whether the speaking order dated August 1, 2025, rejecting the regularization of contract laborers, was legally sustainable

3. Whether the present application was barred by the principle of res judicata due to previous litigations

The court applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006), which mandates that regularization requires engagement against sanctioned posts through lawful recruitment

It further referenced Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the definition of "service matters"

Fundamental Rule 56(a) concerning the age of superannuation

Railway Board guidelines dated July 25, 2007, which set parameters for screening contract labor

Regarding res judicata, the court considered State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain

The Tribunal first addressed res judicata, ruling that because the Respondents had agreed before the High Court to "reconsider" the claims, they created a fresh cause of action and could not now plead the matter was barred by prior adjudication

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the Railways were required to "call for" documents; the High Court had merely reserved the "option" for the applicants to submit them

The Tribunal found that the Screening Committee, comprising senior officers, had properly scrutinized the submissions and concluded that the laborers failed to satisfy the "proof of working period" parameter

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed a fatal practical hurdle: since coal-handling steam engines were discontinued in 1993, any laborer who had completed 10 years of service by then would have surpassed the statutory retirement age of 60 by the year 2025, making them ineligible for appointment under FR 56(a)

The applicants failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove the required length of service or eligibility for civil posts

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed O.A. 1664/2025 with no order as to costs