Similarly situated casual labourers cannot be denied temporary status and consequential benefits under the 1991 scheme.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer/mail escort on 27 June 1988 in the Baripada–Deuli mail line. He claimed entitlement to temporary status and consequential regularisation under the Department of Posts’ Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme dated 12 April 1991. The Scheme contemplated conferment of temporary status on eligible casual labourers who had rendered the prescribed period of service.

The applicant’s earlier proceedings included O.A. No. 80/1997, in which the Tribunal directed consideration of his representation, and O.A. No. 341/1999, in which the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant temporary status from the date it became due, along with seniority and consequential benefits. That order was upheld by the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8723/2004 on 28 September 2005. Subsequently, in O.A. Nos. 595/2011 and 772/2015, the Tribunal again directed consideration of his representations.

The respondents rejected the applicant’s claim by order dated 29 January 2016, primarily on the grounds that he had worked for only six hours per day, had been engaged after the relevant cut-off date, and had not been sponsored through an Employment Exchange.

During rehearing after remand by the Orissa High Court, the applicant relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 372/2019, where temporary status had been granted to a similarly situated casual worker who had worked for more than four hours per day and completed the prescribed period of service.

1. Whether the respondents’ order dated 29 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claim for temporary status was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to conferment of temporary status and consequential benefits under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme dated 12 April 1991.

3. Whether the benefit granted in favour of similarly situated casual labourers in O.A. No. 372/2019 could be extended to the applicant.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts’ Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme dated 12 April 1991, under which eligible casual labourers fulfilling the prescribed service requirements were entitled to temporary status and the benefits attached to that status.

It relied on the principle that similarly situated employees should receive similar treatment, particularly where the respondents had not shown that the decision granting relief to a comparable employee had been reversed or stayed.

The Tribunal also followed its earlier decisions in O.A. No. 819/1994 and O.A. No. 372/2019, which recognised entitlement to temporary status where the casual worker had completed the requisite period of service, including service exceeding four hours per day.

The earlier order in O.A. No. 341/1999, upheld by the Orissa High Court, was also relevant as it directed consideration of temporary status from the date it became due, together with seniority and consequential benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case was materially similar to that of the applicant in O.A. No. 372/2019. In that case, despite the respondents’ dispute regarding the exact number of hours worked, the Tribunal relied on the admitted fact that the applicant had worked for more than four hours per day and had completed the prescribed period of service, thereby entitling him to temporary status under the Scheme.

Applying that reasoning, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not deny the applicant comparable treatment merely by relying on the alleged six-hour working period or the absence of Employment Exchange sponsorship, particularly when the applicant’s entitlement had already been the subject of prior Tribunal directions and the respondents had not established that the precedent relied upon by him had been overturned.

The rejection order was therefore found inconsistent with the treatment accorded to similarly situated casual labourers and with the Tribunal’s earlier directions.

Upon conferment of temporary status, the applicant was held entitled to the benefits available to temporary-status workers under the Scheme. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, was disposed of, with no order as to costs.