Seasonal daily-wage workers have no right to regularization or re-engagement for discontinued posts.

The applicant, Mohd. Mahboob, was first engaged as a Seasonal Waterman in May 1996 for six months and subsequently re-engaged in 1997, 2007, and 2008.

He claimed to have completed more than 240 days of service and sought regularization and re-engagement, asserting preference over new candidates due to his seniority, work experience, and performance.

The applicant had previously approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 210/2020, which was disposed of on March 6, 2020, with a direction to the respondents to decide his claim within four months.

Following non-compliance, he filed Contempt Petition No. 82/2020, which was dismissed on July 20, 2022, after the respondents issued a speaking and reasoned order dated January 20, 2021, rejecting his claims.

This rejection order is the subject of the present application.

The respondents stated that the qualification for Seasonal Waterman did not prescribe preference for previous service, that such engagement was temporary and seasonal, and that the position of Seasonal Waterman has been discontinued since 2020.

They also differentiated the case of Anil Kumar Singh, who was appointed as a Peon through a separate selection process, not by way of regularization from a Seasonal Waterman role.

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 20, 2021, passed by respondent-3, is liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to re-engage and regularize the applicant's services, giving preference to his past services.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the filing of the Original Application.

It implicitly applied principles of administrative law regarding valid reasons for rejection of claims and the distinction between temporary/seasonal employment and permanent/regularized positions.

It also referenced the legal principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding regularization after completing 240 days of service, as cited by the applicant from *Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad*, Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024, to assess the applicant's claim of legitimate expectation.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought by the applicant was unwarranted because the engagement of Seasonal Watermen was purely temporary, need-based, and for fixed periods, which automatically ceased upon term expiry.

The advertisement for the post clearly stated no preference for prior service, and selections were based on merit and skill assessment by a screening committee.

The argument for equalization with Anil Kumar Singh, who was appointed as a Peon through a separate, merit-based process for a sanctioned vacancy, was distinguished.

Crucially, the scheme for Seasonal Daily-Wage Watermen was discontinued from 2020, rendering any claim for re-engagement under it obsolete.

The applicant's claim for regularization based on completing over 240 days of service was rejected as his engagement was neither continuous nor for a period of ten years in any calendar year.

The judgment in *Shripal & Anr.* relied upon by the applicant was deemed inapplicable as it pertained to reinstatement with partial back wages for similarly situated employees, a different factual matrix.

The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the respondents' decision to reject the applicant's claims for re-engagement and regularization.

The applicant's prayers to quash the impugned order and direct re-engagement and regularization were consequently denied.

All pending MAs in the O.A. also stood disposed of.