Uma Devi cannot shield long-term exploitative adhocism for service of a perennial nature.

The 28 applicants were engaged as casual employees/mazdoors by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in Dimapur, Nagaland, during 1996-1997

Pursuant to the "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989," the applicants were granted temporary status

Despite various departmental communications in 2000 and 2001 directing the regularization of casual labourers against available vacancies, the applicants remained un-regularized while similarly situated persons in Manipur were granted such benefits

The applicants previously approached the Tribunal in OA No. 100/2014, where the court directed the respondents to consider their cases under the framework of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)

On 17.12.2022, BSNL issued speaking orders rejecting the applicants' claims, contending that their initial engagement in 1997 violated a recruitment ban, were not against sanctioned posts, and did not meet the 10-year continuous service requirement as of the Uma Devi judgment date

The applicants challenged these orders, seeking retrospective regularization and consequential benefits after 26–27 years of service

Whether the applicants’ appointments were "illegal" or "irregular" and if they are entitled to regularization under the "one-time measure" exception in paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi judgment.

Whether the respondents can rely on Uma Devi as a shield to deny regularization after extracting over 25 years of continuous service from the applicants.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], specifically paragraph 53, which permits the regularization of "irregular" (not illegal) appointments of duly qualified persons in vacant posts who have worked for ten years or more without court intervention

It further relied on State of Jammu and Kashmir v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [(2017) 3 SCC 410], which clarified that Uma Devi does not denude the State of its power to frame regularization schemes

The Tribunal also invoked the doctrine from Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65], stating that the State cannot blame the absence of sanctioned posts to deny regularization if the need for the work is perennial

Finally, it applied recent precedents including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), which established that Uma Devi cannot be used as a "shield" to justify long-term adhocism or exploitation

The Tribunal rejected BSNL's argument that the appointments were "illegal" due to a recruitment ban, noting that BSNL failed to provide evidence of such illegality and never initiated disciplinary action against the hiring authorities

The court reasoned that since the applicants were continued in service for over 26 years—even after the Uma Devi ruling—their services were clearly indispensable and perennial in nature

The Tribunal observed that the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" must be viewed through the lens of fair process; here, the long-term engagement negated the "illegal" tag

Following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Nihal Singh, the Tribunal held that BSNL’s failure to create sanctioned posts while extracting decades of work was an arbitrary exercise of power

It concluded that BSNL was using Uma Devi as a tool for exploitation, which is prohibited by recent Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing the State’s role as a "constitutional employer" rather than a mere market participant

It held that the applicants are entitled to regularization as their long-term continuous service demonstrated the perennial nature of their work and their appointments were not "illegal"

The respondents were directed to pass orders regularizing the applicants' services as regular employees with all consequential benefits within three months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded