Employment continuity of over eleven years invites regularization despite the initial temporary status, based on equitable considerations and established legal norms.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 490/2020, titled Sh. Sandeep Kumar v. The Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father was a permanent Group ‘D’ employee with the respondent organisation, Department of Law and Justice and served as a Peon until his demise on 23.02.2005. He was the sole earning member of the family, and upon his father’s death, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application dated 08.02.2007 requesting compassionate appointment for the petitioner.

3. After almost a year, the petitioner was contacted by the respondent and asked to join its services. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the respondent on 21.03.2008 as Multi-Tasking Staff (‘MTS’), as a daily wager.

4. The petitioner submitted that at the time of his engagement in 2008, he was assured by the respondent that his appointment would be treated as a compassionate appointment and that his services would be regularized in due course. The petitioner did not challenge this arrangement and, relying on the assurance that his appointment was made on compassionate grounds with finalization pending, he continued to work as a daily wager.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he received letters dated 08.11.2013 and 06.12.2013 from the respondent, seeking further information in relation to his Compassionate Appointment Application. The petitioner responded to the said letters vide its letter dated 11.12.2013, whereby the petitioner furnished all the necessary particulars sought by the respondent.

6. The petitioner further contended that while several other daily wagers, including those appointed after him, were regularized in June 2018, on completion of 10 years of their service, he was arbitrarily excluded from the process of regularization without any justification.

7. In the year 2019, the petitioner was terminated from employment and was informed that, due to a policy decision, he could not continue as a daily wager and would have to be hired on a contractual basis.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner requested respondent to reconsider his termination and also lodged a grievance before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, however, he received no redressal from the respondent.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. 490/2020 before the learned Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:

“a. Pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the appropriate post, as he has completed 11 years as daily wager in the post of Peon.

b. Pass an order directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner in service with the respondent on compassionate ground.

c. Pass such other directions or orders as this Honorable Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice”

10. The learned Tribunal, vide the Impugned Order, dismissed the said O.A. by holding as under:

“3. It is clear that the applicant was employed as a Daily Wager but the nature of the appointment was not one on compassionate grounds in lieu of his father. The two prayers made by the applicant are contradictory. The first prayer is to regularise him on an appropriate post on which he has completed 11 years as Daily Wager and the second prayer is to