Unverified, unauthorised casual service does not entitle workers to screening or seniority-list inclusion.

The eight applicants claimed that they had been engaged as daily-wage/substitute “Awaji Gair Safaiwalas” at different stations of the North Eastern Railway between 1983 and 1988/1991, with intermittent periods of service.

They alleged that, although a seniority list of Awaji Safaiwalas had been published, no corresponding list of Awaji Gair Safaiwalas was prepared and that they were excluded from the screening test conducted in October 2011.

They sought publication of a provisional/final seniority list, consideration for allocation of work with remuneration, and consequential reliefs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The respondents contended that the applicants’ claim was filed after a delay of more than 21 years; that their alleged engagements after 1980 lacked approval of the General Manager; that their names did not appear in the substitute Gair Safaiwala list published on 3 February 1997; and that the relevant pre-2000 records had been destroyed, making their service unverifiable.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had not undergone the screening test because their engagements were not approved by the General Manager.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to inclusion in the seniority list of substitute Awaji Gair Safaiwalas and to consideration for allocation of work with remuneration.

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to conduct a screening test for the applicants and to include their names in the seniority list was arbitrary or discriminatory.

3. Whether the applicants’ claim, raised after more than two decades and unsupported by verifiable official records, was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and absence of proof of approved engagement.

4. Whether the applicants were entitled to compensation on the basis of Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India and Ram Abhilash Singh v. Union of India.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that a stale and belated service claim cannot ordinarily be entertained where the applicant fails to establish a continuing legal right or a valid basis for condoning the delay.

It further accepted the administrative principle that engagement as casual labour/substitute staff without the requisite approval of the competent authority does not create an enforceable right to inclusion in a seniority list, screening, re-engagement, or allocation of work.

The Tribunal distinguished Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India, Writ-A No. 11282 of 2018, decided on 31 January 2025, and Ram Abhilash Singh v. Union of India, SLP No. 22533 of 2025, because those cases concerned persons who had participated in screening or whose service-related claims stood on materially different facts.

No separate statutory or constitutional rule was applied to grant compensation in the present case.

The Tribunal found the applicants’ claims to be highly stale, as their alleged service ended many years before the filing of the Original Application in 2012.

It accepted the respondents’ explanation that the applicants had worked without the General Manager’s approval, that their names were absent from the 3 February 1997 list, and that the relevant records had been destroyed before 2000, preventing verification of their alleged service.

In these circumstances, the applicants could not establish either a valid approved engagement or an enforceable right to screening, seniority, re-engagement, or future work.

The Tribunal further held that the compensation precedents relied upon were distinguishable because the claimants in those matters had participated in screening or had otherwise established a materially different factual foundation.

Accordingly, the alleged discrimination and entitlement to compensation were not made out.

It held that they were not entitled to inclusion in the seniority list, screening, allocation of work, remuneration, or compensation because their claims were stale, their engagements lacked General Manager approval, their names were absent from the relevant seniority list, and their service could not be verified.

Original Application No. 587 of 2012 was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were deemed disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.