Long-serving casual laborers who have rendered continuous service (240+ days/year) are eligible for temporary status and regularization; the Uma Devi judgment must not be misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of employees in irregular but not illegal appointments.

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM:

The applicants through this O.A. have prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure A/1). They have further sought directions to regularize their services in the permanent establishment with all consequential benefits in light of the order passed by this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The applicants have also prayed that during pendency of the application, their services may not be dispensed with.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the Applicant no. 1 belongs to UR category and the applicant no. 2 belongs to Schedule Caste category. Both the applicants were engaged in the capacity of casual laborers in the western region with effect from 01.11.1989 and22.05.1989. They have already completed 28 years of service. However, no steps have been taken to regularize their services by the respondent department. There are similarly situated employees who are much juniors to the applicants, namely Shri Ramesh Sagar and Shri Rishi Ram who have already been regularized. The applicants approached this Tribunal vide Original application as O.A. No. 786/96 (Ishwar Das &ors. Vs. Union of India &ors.). This Tribunal passed an order dated 01.01.1997 (Annexure A/7)with a direction that relief be granted for regularization of the services as given to similarly situated persons. The Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize their services within 6 months. The applicants attained temporary status as they had worked for more than 240 days in a year and are continuing to work without a gap as on date. The applicants preferred O.A.No. 227/2003 (Shobhnath Pandey &ors. Vs. Union of India &ors.) which was allowed and disposed vide order dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure A/2) by this Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the respondents that the judgment pronounced vide order dated 01.01.1997 (Annexure A/7) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of applicants. Although the respondents have regularized the services of the applicants in original application as O.A. No. 786/96, they decided to challenge the decision in O.A. 227/2003 (Shobhnath Pandey & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.) by way of Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/3), modified the order of this Tribunal and directed the respondents to screen the case of regularization of applicants in light of office memorandum dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure A/5). They were also directed to pass a speaking order within a period of 3 months. However, all other findings recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure A/2) were kept undisturbed. Consequent to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents have rejected the claim put forth by the applicants regarding regularization of their services vide impugned order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, the applicants filed contempt petition before the Tribunal. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure A/4). Thus, this O.A. has been filed before the Tribunal. The applicants are relying the case of Shri Ramesh Sagar (Annexure A/8), wherein the respondents have granted the benefit of regularization of service to Shri Ramesh Sagar although the applicants are senior to him. The names of applicants are mentioned at Sr. No. 4 & 5 in the seniority list pu