Temporary-status casual labourers gain no automatic right to regularisation or pension after failing regular selection.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1990 and was subsequently granted Temporary Status pursuant to proceedings arising from OA No. 452/1994.

He joined as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer on 17 September 2002 and continued until his retirement on 31 January 2023.

He sought regularisation, pension and retiral benefits, relying, inter alia, on the Tribunal’s decision in Rameshwari Devi v. Union of India, OA No. 36/2021.

Pursuant to directions issued in OA No. 892/2022, the respondents passed a reasoned order dated 28 May 2024 rejecting his claim.

The applicant challenged that order in the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents contended that the applicant had never been appointed against a sanctioned post, had participated unsuccessfully in a regular selection process for the post of Monument Attendant, and was therefore not entitled to regularisation or pensionary benefits.

Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable right to regularisation merely because he served for a prolonged period as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer.

Whether the applicant was entitled to pension and retiral benefits despite retiring without regularisation against a sanctioned post.

Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with the relief granted in Rameshwari Devi v. Union of India.

Whether the order dated 28 May 2024 rejecting the applicant’s claim suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, discrimination or violation of law.

The Tribunal applied the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993, particularly Clause 4(iv), under which conferment of Temporary Status does not amount to appointment against a permanent civil post and a Temporary Status Casual Labourer can be brought on the permanent establishment only after selection through the regular process for Group ‘D’ posts; the Scheme also permits counting of 50% of Temporary Status service for pensionary purposes only after regularisation and excludes benefits not expressly provided.

The Tribunal relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), holding that public employment and regularisation must conform to constitutional and statutory recruitment requirements, and on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, which restricts the invocation of one-time regularisation principles to cases satisfying the conditions laid down in Umadevi.

It considered Birma Devi v. Union of India, Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, and Jaggo v. Union of India, recognising that prolonged Temporary Status service and administrative inaction may, in appropriate circumstances, support pensionary or substantive claims, but do not create an automatic right to regularisation contrary to recruitment rules.

Relief granted on the particular facts of Rameshwari Devi was treated as in personam and not as a judgment in rem conferring an automatic right of parity.

The Tribunal held that Temporary Status was distinct from regular appointment and did not, by itself, confer a right to absorption or pension.

Although the applicant had served for many years, the record showed that the respondents had conducted a regular selection exercise for sanctioned posts, in which the applicant participated but failed to qualify.

His non-regularisation was therefore not attributable solely to administrative inaction, unlike the factual situation considered in Birma Devi and Bhikhani Devi.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had neither established appointment against a sanctioned permanent post nor shown that similarly situated persons had been arbitrarily regularised while he was excluded.

Since he had not challenged the selection process or his failure therein at the relevant time, he could not indirectly nullify its consequences after retirement by seeking regularisation and consequential pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal further distinguished Rameshwari Devi because parity requires substantially identical facts and governing legal conditions, which were absent here.

The impugned order was found to be a reasoned and speaking order passed in compliance with the earlier direction in OA No. 892/2022.

It held that long service as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer did not confer an enforceable right to regularisation where the applicant had been given an opportunity to compete for appointment against sanctioned posts but had failed to qualify.

Consequently, he was not entitled to pension, retiral benefits or a Pension Payment Order in the absence of regularisation.

The challenge to the order dated 28 May 2024 was dismissed, the OA was found devoid of merit, and no order as to costs was made.

Any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.