Length of service does not create a right to regularization in the absence of sanctioned posts, as upheld in Uma Devi (2006).

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicants have filed the present Original Applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) “quashing the order Kumar 40084/MF/E/Devinder passed by the respondent No. 3. impugned No. dated 10-03-2018

b) Directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as casual labour on the analogy of those who have already been regularised by the respondents, as petitioner being similarly situated persons in the same department.

c) With a further prayer for issuance of any other order, writ or direction whatsoever the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The petitioners were appointed as daily wagers in the respondents’ establishment long ago and have been continuously working in the Military Farm Department for more than two decades. Their grievance is common and identical, and hence they have jointly preferred this petition. Despite their long and dedicated service, their claims for regularization have been rejected, while similarly situated persons, including juniors and even ineligible candidates, have been regularized by the respondents, thereby depriving the petitioners of their legitimate rights.

b) The petitioners submit that they have rendered their entire precious years of life in the service of the respondents as daily wagers, and at this advanced stage of life they are left with no job opportunities elsewhere. They have made repeated representations to the respondents seeking regularization, but on each occasion their genuine claim has been set aside or ignored, whereas the respondents followed a policy of “pick and choose” in regularizing others. This conduct of the respondents has resulted in hostile discrimination against the petitioners, violating Articles 14, 16, 38, 39, 41 and 43 of the Constitution of India.

c) It is specifically alleged that juniors to the petitioners, as well as persons not fulfilling the required eligibility criteria, have been regularized, while the petitioners were left out. Many such irregularities have been revealed through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, which shows that persons underage, overage, or without proper date of birth records, and those who had not even completed the mandatory period of 240 days of service per year or ten years of continuous service, were brought on the rolls of regular establishment during January 2017. These irregularities are reflected in annexed charts and documents wherein the names, dates of birth, and dates of engagement of such regularized persons have been shown.

d) The petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), as also the decision in Uma Devi (2006), contending that they fall within the category of those employees who are entitled to one-time regularization after completion of more than ten years of continuous service.

e) The matter has already undergone a round of litigation earlier.

The Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed their claim by order dated 29.09.2016. Against the said order, the petitioners filed SWP No. 988/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Jammu, which vide judgment dated 18.05.2017 quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in terms of paragraph 44 of Uma Devi ’s case. Despite this clear direction, the respondents failed to implement the same, compelling the petitioners to file a contempt petition. In the contempt proceedings, the respondents filed a compliance report citing order No