Similarly situated casual labourers are entitled to the temporary status and regularisation granted to their peers.

The applicant was engaged as a part-time casual labourer in 1997 and was later converted to full-time casual labour.

He sought temporary status from 1 September 1999 and regularisation from 16 February 2004, relying on benefits granted to other workers, including his junior, Pritu Bhushan Roy.

The respondents rejected his claim by letter dated 20 July 2023.

The applicant challenged that letter before the Tribunal; the respondents raised limitation and disputed his eligibility under the applicable scheme.

The Tribunal noted that a letter dated 28 May 2011 described the applicant as a “left out” casual labourer for regularisation, and that certain other workers had received temporary status and regularisation.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to temporary status and regularisation on the basis that similarly situated workers, including his junior, had received those benefits.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the limitation period for applications before the Tribunal; the respondents relied on it to oppose the application.

The respondents also relied on the 1989 DoT temporary-status scheme and related instructions, and on Union of India v. Mohan Pal, which held that the scheme was not ongoing and confined temporary status to workers satisfying its specified conditions.

They further cited Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) for the principle that public employment must conform to constitutional requirements and that regularisation cannot ordinarily bypass them.

The Tribunal referred to Jaggo v. Union of India, quoting its observations on fair and stable employment practices for long-serving temporary workers.

It also relied on the principle of equal treatment, finding that similarly situated workers had received the benefits sought by the applicant.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s long service, the 2011 description of him as a “left out” casual labourer, and the grant of temporary status and regularisation to other workers, including a junior.

It concluded that, because similarly situated persons had received those benefits, it should not take a different view in the applicant’s case.

Although the respondents raised limitation and relied on scheme eligibility and Umadevi, the Tribunal did not separately determine the limitation objection or explain how the scheme’s conditions and those authorities applied to the applicant; its decision rested principally on parity and its reliance on Jaggo.

The directions were to be implemented within three months of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.