Long-term casual workers on perennial duties entitled to regularization with parity to similarly situated employees, overriding strict eligibility if equity demands.

O R D E R

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

1.Applicant has filed this OA inter alia praying for direction to the respondents to regularize his service by conferring temporary status retrospectively w.e.f. the date respondent Nos. 4 and 5 got temporary status with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. In this case the respondents filed their counter, opposing and contesting the case of the applicant, by stating that the applicant was engaged in the year 1998 on casual basis, not against any sanctioned post. He was granted 1/30 pay scale on 27.04.2007 as per OM issued by the DoP&T. The Nodal Ministry i.e. DoPT issued OM dated 10.09.1993, providing therein the conditions for conferment of temporary status on all such casual laborers who are in employment on the date of issue of the said O.M., and worked by them at least for 240 days in a calendar year (260 days in a year in the case of offices observing 5 days in a week). It is stated that since, the applicant did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the said DoP&T OM dated 10.09.1993, he was not rightly granted the temporary status followed by regularization. Hence prayed that in view of the above, the applicant is not entitled the prayer sought for to direct the respondents to regularize his service by conferring temporary status retrospectively w.e.f. the date respondent Nos. 4 and 5 got temporary status with all consequential and monetary benefits.

3. In this regard respondents hSaevcer ettaakreyn, Sthtaet seh oefl tKera ronf athtaek dae acinsdio On rosf. tVhse. HUmona’b Dlee Avpi,e x Court in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 1, to substantiate that the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant, based on the pleadings in the OA and rejoinder, has submitted that similarly situated casual labourers had already been regularized by the department, on their own, or, in compliance of the order of this Bench in the cases filed by them. It is stated that although the applicant’s case stands in the same footing he has unjustifiably, illegally and arbitrarily deprived of the regularization. It is stated that the applicant has been discharging his duties uninterruptedly on casual basis since 1998 to the best satisfaction of his authorities till date. By this process he became over aged to get any other employment in any Government Organisation. Further it is stated that unless he is regularized he will also be deprived of his livelihood on post-retirement life. In order to substantiate that his claim is just, proper and genuine and thus is entitled for regularization retrospectively with all financial benefits, and to substantiate his claims he hJaagsg pola cVesd. rUenliiaonnc eo of nI nthdei ad,e cisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in thSeh rciapsaels o&f Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, G2h0a2z4ia bSaCdC, OnLine SC 3826, and in Dharam Singh Vs State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine PSaCw 2a2n1 , Kinu mthaer c aVsse. oUfn ion of India, 2026 INSC 156. 2025 INSC 998, and

5. Having heard the parties, perused records. It is apt to extract the relevant portions of deJcaigsigoon sV orfs H. oUnn’biolen A opfe xI nasd iuan daenrd: Others

6. In the case of (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short- term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become