Temporary status does not entitle casual labourers to regularization after abolition of Group-D posts.

The three connected writ petitions concerned casual workers engaged by North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU).

In WP(C) No. 361 of 2025, Shri Langstar Jarain was appointed as a Casual Worker in 1991 and was granted temporary status retrospectively from 1 September 1993 under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 (“1993 Scheme”).

In WP(C) No. 399 of 2025, Shri Niatlien Syiem was appointed as a pro-rata daily wage labourer on 19 January 1993, worked as a Chowkidar, and was granted temporary status from 1 September 1993.

In WP(C) No. 400 of 2025, Shri Tranbor Langbnang was appointed as a pro-rata casual labourer on 1 April 1991, worked as a Bus Attendant, and was similarly granted temporary status.

All three petitioners sought regularisation on the basis of their long service and temporary status.

The petitioners relied, inter alia, on the decision in All NEHU Workers’ Union v. NEHU & Ors., WP(C) No. 135 of 2025, while the respondents contended that the 1993 Scheme was a one-time measure and that regularisation was impermissible after the abolition of Group-D posts.

Whether the petitioners, having been granted temporary status under the 1993 Scheme and having rendered long years of service, were entitled to regularisation or absorption in NEHU

Whether NEHU could regularise or absorb the petitioners in the absence of an operative regularisation scheme, sanctioned posts, approval from the competent authorities, and the requisite qualifications for Group-C posts

Whether the judgment in All NEHU Workers’ Union v. NEHU & Ors., WP(C) No. 135 of 2025, supported the petitioners’ claim for relief

The Court applied the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993, treating it as a one-time scheme that did not create a continuing or automatic right to regularisation after its non-extension.

It further applied the principle that regularisation in a Central University must conform to the applicable recruitment rules, sanctioned posts, prescribed qualifications, and a proper selection process; temporary status or long service alone does not confer an enforceable right to permanent appointment.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Shri Elias Marbaniang & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 70 of 2024, particularly paragraph 16, which held that abolition of Group-D posts following the Sixth Pay Commission made regularisation structurally impossible, and that NEHU lacked unilateral authority to regularise the workers without directions from the DoPT and approval of the UGC or Ministry of Education.

The Court also noted that the decision in All NEHU Workers’ Union v. NEHU & Ors. was pending in W.A. No. 41 of 2026 and that the directions issued therein had been stayed.

The Court held that the petitioners’ temporary status under the 1993 Scheme did not, by itself, establish a right to regularisation.

The scheme was a one-time measure and could not be invoked indefinitely after its non-extension.

Further, following the Sixth Pay Commission, Group-D posts had been abolished or upgraded to Group-C posts, making regularisation in the original category structurally unavailable.

NEHU also lacked autonomous power to create a regularisation route without approval or directions from the DoPT, UGC, or Ministry of Education.

The Court additionally found that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications for absorption into Group-C posts; even the assertion that Shri Langstar Jarain had passed Class X and ITI was unsupported by documentary evidence.

The reliance on the All NEHU Workers’ Union judgment was misplaced because that judgment was under appeal and its operative directions had been stayed.

In view of the one-time nature of the 1993 Scheme, the abolition of Group-D posts, the absence of requisite governmental and institutional approval, and the petitioners’ lack of prescribed qualifications for available Group-C posts, no enforceable right to regularisation arose.

Accordingly, WP(C) Nos. 361, 399, and 400 of 2025 were dismissed.