(Reserved on 13.02.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

Original Application No.740/2014 This is the 26^th Day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Roop Chand, remount Training School and Depot, Saharanpur 247001 (U.P.).

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Jaswant Singh Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

2. The Quarter Master General, QMG’s Branch AHQ DHQ, P.O. New Delhi.

3. The Director General, R.V.S. (R.V.I) QMGs Branch, AHQ (ST-12 (Civ), IHQ of MoD (Army),West Block-III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066.

4. The C.D.A. (Army), Belvadier Complex, Meerut Cantt.

5. The Commandant, Remount Training School & Depot, Saharanpur.

……… Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey

O R D E R

Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services against the notified vacancies.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was engaged as a Casual Labourer under the respondents on 04.11.1990 and has been continuously working since then. It is his case that in terms of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions O.M. dated 10.09.1993, which provided for grant of Temporary Status to casual workers who had completed 240 days of service, he had completed the requisite 240 days and thereby became entitled to conferment of Temporary Status and consequential regularization.

3.1 It is further stated that earlier the applicant had approached the Principal Bench in O.A. No.1440/2000, wherein directions were issued to the respondents to examine his claim. However, the respondents rejected his case stating that he had not completed 240 days as on 10.09.1993 and that no junior had been granted Temporary Status. The applicant thereafter continued to work and was issued a certificate dated 12.03.2011 showing his engagement. He again submitted a representation dated 19.06.2013 seeking regularisation. It is also stated that though vacancies in Group-D were filled in the year 2005 and subsequently 181 posts of Group- C (erstwhile Group-D) were notified vide notification dated 23.05.2013, providing that 2/3rd of the vacancies would be filled from Temporary Status Casual Labourers, his claim was not considered. Aggrieved by the non-grant of Temporary Status and non-consideration of his case for regularisation despite alleged continuous service, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

4. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, it is the stand of the respondents that the applicant is neither a Casual Labour with Temporary Status (CLTS) nor an employee holding any post under the establishment, but is merely a daily wages labourer engaged on requirement basis depending upon availability of work. It is further stated that the applicant had applied for the post of Syce as an open category candidate pursuant to newspaper notifications dated 23.05.2013 and 22.06.2013 and was not selected by the duly constituted Board of Officers on account of low merit. According to the respondents, the provisions of DOP&T O.M. dated 10.09.1993 relating to regularisation of Casual Labour with Temporary Status are not applicable to the applicant, as he was never granted Temporary Status and had participated in the recruitment process as a direct/open candidate. It is also their case that certain documents relied upon by the applicant are false and fabricated and that he has no legal right to seek regularisation. On these grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case are as follows:-

5.1 The applicant was en