Retrospective regularization cannot be claimed after significant delay and post-retirement in the absence of statutory schemes.

The petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer by the respondents in 1991 and was granted "temporary status" effective September 1, 1993.

She remained in service for approximately 22 years until she ceased work/retired in 2013.

In 2019, six years after her retirement, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam, seeking retrospective regularization and retiral benefits.

She based her claim on a "posthumous regularization" granted to a similarly placed individual named Kathireshan.

The CAT dismissed her application (OA No. 177 of 2019), leading to this Original Petition.

1. Whether the respondents were under a mandatory obligation to conduct an enquiry for regularization under the principles of the Umadevi judgment.

2. Whether a claim for retrospective regularization can be entertained when raised six years after the cessation of service.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1], which permits a one-time measure for regularizing employees who have worked for more than ten years against sanctioned posts but does not create an absolute right to regularization in the absence of schemes or qualifications.

The doctrine of laches/delay in service matters, implying that claims for status changes must be made while in service or within a reasonable time.

The Court observed that while the petitioner served for two decades, she failed to challenge her non-regularization during her entire tenure.

The respondents clarified that during her service, two regularization schemes were propounded, but the petitioner was ineligible due to lack of requisite qualifications and physical attributes.

Regarding the Umadevi precedent, the Court held that the judgment does not cast a mandatory duty on Departments to conduct enquiries for every worker; rather, it was a discretion available as a one-time measure.

The Court further noted that even if the petitioner felt aggrieved, she was required to approach a judicial forum while in service.

The Court rejected the "Negative Equality" argument based on the case of "Kathireshan," stating that a single instance of posthumous benefit, not backed by law or a scheme, cannot be used to compel the government to regularize others retrospectively without legal provision.

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's order, ruling that a claim for retrospective regularization raised six years after retirement is not worthy of consideration.

The Original Petition was dismissed.