Once a tribunal’s directions for service regularisation attain finality, the state cannot subvert them by framing schemes that maintain temporary status. It is mandatory for the state to adhere to the explicit mandate of creating sanctioned posts for permanent employment as ordered, ensuring fairness as a model employer.

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment dated 8th July, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras¹ in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order dated 20th December, 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Digitally signed by in O.A. No. 326 of 2015, rejecting the appellants’ claim for regularisation of their services.

Signature Not Verified

N D E at E e T : U 20 K 2 H 6. A 0 J 4 U .2 R 9 IA 1 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

1 R 9 e : a 4 s 7 o :4 n :

IST

2 Hereinafter, referred to as “Tribunal”.

3. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows: -

3.1. The appellants are daily-wage employees engaged at different points of time between 1991 and 1997 in the Mahendragiri Unit of the respondent-Centre. In 1993, respondent No. 1 formulated a scheme3 conferring temporary status upon casual labourers. Pursuant thereto, the appellants submitted representations seeking regularisation of their services in terms of the said scheme.

3.2. As no action was taken by the respondents, the appellants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 455 of 2009, seeking regularisation of their services along with all attendant and consequential benefits available to regular employees.

3.3. By order dated 9th March, 2010, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the respondents to formulate a scheme or issue ad-hoc rules within a period of six months, by creating the requisite number of posts, for engaging persons like the appellants on a permanent basis for sporadic types of work.

3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 19634 of 2010 before the High Court,

3 Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993.

which came to be dismissed by order dated 14th March, 2011. The Special Leave Petition filed before this Court, being SLP No. 19200 of 2011, was also dismissed by order dated 29th July, 2011, thereby attaining finality.

3.5. In purported compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 framed the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work)

Scheme”, For short, “Gang Labourers Scheme”. on 3rd September, 2012.

3.6. Contending that the said scheme was not in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal, the appellants filed Contempt Application No. 101 of 2011 before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by order dated 10th October, 2012.

3.7. In the meantime, the appellants expressed their willingness to be governed by the said scheme.

3.8. The appellants thereafter challenged the validity of the said scheme by filing O.A. No. 326 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 14th July, 2016, dismissed the application. The appellants carried the matter to the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 8163 of 2017, which was allowed on 25th April, 2017,

and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

3.9. Upon remand, the Tribunal, by order dated 20th December, 2018, once again dismissed the application. A Review Application No. 11 of 2019 was also dismissed.

3.10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019 before the High Court, seeking qua