Similarly situated casual labourers must be considered for regularisation on parity with beneficiaries.

The applicants were casual labourers in the Income Tax Department who had been granted temporary status.

They sought regularisation, but their earlier claim was rejected because they had not completed ten years of service by the relevant date.

On remand from the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal reconsidered the application de novo.

The applicants relied on a Bangalore Bench decision granting similar relief to casual labourers in the same Department; that decision was upheld by the Karnataka High Court and implemented by the Department.

The respondents opposed relief, maintaining that the applicants’ cases had been considered under the applicable rules and instructions.

Whether the applicants were similarly situated to the casual labourers who obtained relief in O.A. No. 170/00592/2019, so as to warrant similar consideration.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ cases for consequential relief in light of that decision.

The Tribunal relied on the Bangalore Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 170/00592/2019, which considered the Grant of Temporary Status Scheme, 1993—particularly clause 8, providing for the filling of two out of every three Group ‘D’ vacancies from casual labourers with temporary status—and principles concerning regularisation discussed in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, PWD Employees Union, Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ravi Verma.

The operative direction in that decision was to consider regularisation from the dates the applicants completed ten years of service.

In the present case, the Tribunal treated that decision, as upheld and implemented, as a relevant basis for directing comparable consideration—not as an order automatically regularising these applicants.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had served for a considerable period and that the respondents had identified no material distinction between them and the employees covered by the Bangalore Bench decision.

Given that the Bangalore decision had been upheld by the Karnataka High Court and implemented by the Department, the Tribunal found no reason to take a different view and directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ cases in its light.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of receipt of a certified copy; the respondents were required to issue and communicate a reasoned, speaking order.

There was no order as to costs.