Timeliness and continuous employment are crucial in claims for regularization under employment schemes.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) To quash and set aside the order dated 28th Sep. 2022 passed by respondent.

(b) To direct the respondent to grant the benefit of similarly situated employee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India for re-engagement and thereafter grant the benefit of PTCL (Regularization) Scheme, 2020 for full-time service. Further consequential benefits grant to applicant.

(c) Pass any such order(s) which deem fit and proper in view of this Hon’ble Tribunal.”

2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant had been engaged as a Part Time Casual employee under the respondents in the year 1993, as admitted by the respondents themselves in paragraph 3 of their reply in preliminary objections. Subsequently, the respondents issued Order No. 1-23(3)Admn/SNP/93/731- 739 dated 28.01.1994, wherein the name of the applicant, Om Bir, Chowkidar, appeared at Serial No. 1, bearing Employment Card No. 1474/93, appointing him temporarily for four hours daily on a remuneration of Rs. 500 per month. The applicant thereafter continued to work uninterruptedly under the respondents.

2.2. The name of the applicant was forwarded for approval for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 and again for 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. It was contended that the respondents, in paragraph 3 of their preliminary objections, had themselves admitted that the applicant worked regularly till 15.07.2005, and further acknowledged in paragraph 1 of the preliminary objections that the applicant was being treated as a contractual employee.

2.3. Learned counsel argued that several similarly situated employees of the respondents had earlier approached the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, where some OAs were dismissed and some were disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, those employees approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by filing W.P. Nos. 16733/2009 and 16889/2009. The Hon’ble High Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2011, quashed the orders passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal and issued specific directions to the respondents, relevant paras of which read as under:

“116. In the light of the above and taking note of the fact that the 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 16733 of 2009, Respondents in W.P. No. 16899 of 2009, Writ Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11492 of 2006 & 18969 of 2006 / Applicants had put in fairly long spell of service, we have no hesitation to hold that denying them the temporary status and the consequent regularisation is not a prudent and fair practice (and that too when the Department of Personnel and Training, in Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, framed a one-time regularisation scheme). Otherwise, it would amount to violating the tenor and spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides discrimination, arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

117. Viewed in that perspective and also taking note of the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present cases on hand which float on the surface, in the interest of equity, fair play, good conscience and on humane considerations, we direct the Writ Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 16733 of 2009 & 16889 of 2009 and the Respondents in W.P. Nos. 11492 of 2006 & 18969 of 2006 (Department) to frame a similar Scheme like that of the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 (one-time regularisation scheme framed already) to provide an opportunity of regular entry to the 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 16733 of 2009, Respondents in W.P. No. 16899 of 2009, Writ Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11492 of 2006 & 18969 of 2006 / Applicants, subject to eligibility, possessing qualification, if any, and after relaxing the age bar, and consider their case for regularisa