Temporary fixed-term employees cannot claim service continuity or regularization after their tenure expires.

The applicant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for the post of Dispatch Rider/Messenger following a 1996 advertisement by the Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission)

He was appointed on July 11, 1997, on a purely temporary basis for a period of 89 days

His service concluded on October 13, 1997, by efflux of time

The applicant alleged the post was permanent and filed a complaint with the National Commission for SC/ST, which in 1998 recommended his regularization

The respondents contended the appointment was temporary, the applicant failed to submit a valid SC certificate, and one messenger post was subsequently abolished in 1999

The matter originated as a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in 2001/2004 and was transferred to the Tribunal in 2018

1. Whether an employee appointed on a purely temporary, fixed-tenure basis (89 days) has a legal right to claim continuity of service or regularization

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits after a lapse of nearly 29 years from the date of disengagement

The Tribunal applied the settled principle of service jurisprudence that a person appointed on a purely temporary, fixed-tenure basis holds no right to claim continuity, and such employment concludes automatically by efflux of time

It further relied on the doctrine of judicial review as established in Gridco Limited & Anr v. Sadananda Doloi & Ors (2011), which posits that courts cannot substitute their own views for that of the decision-making authority unless the action is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational

Additionally, the court noted that posts must be filled according to post-based rosters as per DoPT Office Memorandums (e.g., OM No. 36012/2/96-Est.Res.)

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s appointment letter explicitly stated the engagement was for 89 days, which he accepted without objection

Although the applicant claimed the original advertisement was for a permanent post, the record established that his specific engagement was temporary and ended in 1997

The Tribunal highlighted the extraordinary delay, noting that the applicant sought restoration in 2026 for a disengagement that occurred in 1997—a 29-year gap

The Bench reasoned that neither sympathy nor empathetic considerations can override statutory provisions or justify reinstatement at such a belated stage

Furthermore, the respondents were under no obligation to reinstate him since the original appointment was not permanent and the relevant post-based rosters and subsequent abolition of posts precluded such relief

The court ruled that no relief for reinstatement or regularization could be granted after 29 years

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no orders as to costs