The 1993 Casual Labourer Scheme is not ongoing; benefits require employment on its commencement date.

The seven applicants were engaged as daily-wage casual laborers by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the Sarnath Museum in 2009

They performed duties such as sweeping and cleaning for nearly ten years

The applicants claimed they were entitled to "temporary status" and regularization under the "Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993" and subsequent clarifications

On April 1, 2018, the respondents orally terminated the applicants’ services, allegedly to replace them with outsourced labor

The respondents contested the claim, stating the 1993 Scheme was a one-time measure, not an ongoing one, and that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria as they were not in service when the scheme commenced

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to "Temporary Status" and subsequent regularization under the 1993 Scheme despite being engaged in 2009?

2. Whether the applicants’ continued service for nearly ten years entitles them to regularization under the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi?

3. Whether the respondents' act of disengaging the applicants to transition to an outsourcing model was arbitrary or illegal?

Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, which mandates that temporary status is conferred only upon those in employment on the date of the scheme's issuance (September 10, 1993)

Union of India v. Mohan Pal (2002), which clarified that the 1993 Scheme is not an "ongoing scheme" and cannot be claimed by those engaged after its commencement

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which permits regularization as a one-time measure only for those who completed ten years of continuous service against sanctioned posts as of April 10, 2006, without the protection of court orders

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to meet the statutory and precedential requirements for regularization.

Since the applicants were engaged in 2009, they were ineligible for the 1993 Scheme, which the Supreme Court in Mohan Pal explicitly ruled was not an ongoing arrangement

the applicants did not satisfy the Umadevi criteria because they had not completed ten years of service by the 2006 cutoff date, having only started in 2009

The Tribunal distinguished this case from other cited precedents (such as the Jaggo case) by noting that the applicants here did not have the benefit of interim stays and did not fulfill the specific continuous service requirements for "temporary status" or "1/30th status" pay

While acknowledging the applicants' long service, the Tribunal held it could not override established policy and Supreme Court mandates regarding the non-ongoing nature of casual labor schemes

the Tribunal directed the respondents to engage the applicants on a priority basis whenever such work is available and to pay them wages at par with similarly situated workers in other departmental sites

No order as to costs was made