AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985 has been filed claiming following reliefs:-
“1.Call for records pertaining to the engagement of applicant from 29-7-2024 and wages drawn particulars of applicant from 29-7-2024.
2.Quash the superintendent of post offices, Gokak, Dn, Gokak-591307 letter No. GKK/F2/LC/LRJ/Ο.Α.170.1104/2023 dated: 12-12-2024 Annexure A 5 issued by R-4
3.Direct the respondents to restore the applicant as full time casual labourer, and regularize as MTS in accordance with RRS of MTS 2018-Annexure A9 of O.A. 124/2023 ) Annexure A1 from date of eligibility.
4.Initiate suo motto contempt against respondent No.4 for diluting/ disobeying the Hon'ble CAT, order dated: 29-07-2024 in O.A.124/2023 and punish him in accordance with law for adopting unfair means of deny the applicants benefits.
5.Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
These reliefs are claimed on the grounds mentioned in para 5 which are following:-
“5 A. The applicant submits that he was continuously engaged from 1989, and subsequently engaged as full time casual labourer from 1999. Unilaterally reducing the working Hours as 5 years a day and changing the designation as contingent labourer, from 2022 which will result in forfeiting his earlier service from 1989, with the aim of denial of regularization is nothing but unfair labour practice, by a model employer.
B. The Hon'ble CAT Bangalore vide order dated: 29-7-2024 in OA 124/2023 quashed the order of reducing the working Hours (A4 of O.A.124/2023) and remanded the matter to the file R4 for reconsideration based on observation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka inW.P.no.10842/2006 S-CAT and Hon'ble Bangalore order dated; 09-01-2008 in O.A.121/2007.
C. The applicant submits that a poor casual employee is involved in continuous legal battle from 2007 onwards still a solution is evasive.
D. The applicant in accordance the provisions of RRC for MTS 2018, full time/ part time employees were also eligible for regulation as MTS(Annexure-A9 of O.A. 124/2023),
E. The applicant submits that it is not only temporary status, casual labourers, full time, part time casual labourers were also eligible for regularization in accordance with RRS of 2018.
F. The applicant submits that respondents adopt a unfair means that the applicant was engaged for 5 hours only, even after Hon'ble CAT order dated: 29-7-2024, wherein the (A4 of O.A.124/2023 is quashed, which reflects the total arrogance of the respondent No.4 by not obeying the orders of Hon'ble AT dated: 29-7-2024. The wages were not dawn through pay bill and payment is made on pay receipts, thereby denial of any proof of wages to the applicant.
G. The applicant submits that Hon'ble CAT, Principal bench, New Delhi-110001, on identical facts of the case in O.A. 1312/2024 vide order dated: 09-01-1025, allowed the O.A, and directed the respondents to accord the temporary status to the applicant from the date when the applicant working hours extended to seven hours with effect from 23-4-1997 (A6).
H. Therefore the denial of 8 hours duty, and non regularisation as MTS in not obeying the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore order dated: 29-7-2024, in O.A. 124/2023, is arbitrary, arrogance, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Hence the O.A.”
The brief facts of the applicant as mentioned in the synopsis is following:-
“ The applicant was engaged as part time Night watchman at Gokak HO from 24-9-1989, and made full time casual worker from 19-3-1999, by combining duties. The applicant was eligible to be regularized as MTS in accordance with Recruitment rules for MTS 2018. The respondent No.4 arbitrarily reduced the working Hours of applicant as part time contingent labour for 5 years vide letter dated: 31/1/-2/1 - 203 (A4 of O.Α. 124/2023) The applicant challenging the order at Hon'ble CAT Bangalore in O.A.124/2023. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated: 29-7-2024, quashed the Annexure-A4 of Ο.Α.124/2023 and directed to restore in the file of respondent No.4 to reexamine and pass appropriate orders in light of Hon'ble High Court order dated: 17-11-2011, in W.P.No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT) and orders inO.A.121/2007 dated;9-1-2008. The respondent issued a speaking order dated: 12-12-2024, denying full time casual work of 8 hours, instead of offered for 5 hours and engaged for 5 hours only and further stated that applicant is not eligible for grant of temporary status and regularization. The speaking order is in violation of Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore order dated: 29-7-2024 in Ο.Α. Νο. 124/2023. Hence the O.A.”
On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant. Further, additional reply was filed by the respondents and additional rejoinder was filed by the applicant, which was followed by the third set of additional replies.
The case came up for final hearing on 07.09.2026. Shri P. Kamalesan for the applicant and Smt. P.K. Praneshwari for the respondents were present and heard.
We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.
From the pleadings, documents and submissions of the parties, the following material facts emerge and are substantially undisputed. The applicant was initially engaged as a part-time Night Watchman at Gokak Head Post Office on 24.09.1989 and joined duty on 26.09.1989. Subsequently, with effect from 19.03.1999, the duties attached to six part-time assignments were combined and the applicant was engaged as a Full-Time Casual Labourer (FTCL), involving a total of eight hours of work per day. His work continued in that capacity for more than two decades. His working hours were thereafter reduced to five hours per day and he was treated as a contingent labourer with effect from 02.09.2022.
The principal defence of the respondents is that the applicant was not engaged through the Employment Exchange; that he was initially appointed on a part-time basis and without a sanctioned post; that he was subjected to intermittent breaks in service; and that, consequently, he could neither acquire temporary status nor claim regularisation. The respondents further rely upon DOPT O.M. No. 5101/6/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10.09.1993 and the subsequent clarifications to contend that the prescribed conditions for grant of temporary status were not fulfilled. Annexure A2 is Appointment Order dated 24.09.1989 addressed to the applicant Shri LR Jogannavar, which inter alia other things contains the following:
“Sub: Appointment order to part time casual labour Night Watchman at HPO. Gokak. You are h/b appointed as a casual labour Night Watchman at Gokak Head Post office forth with so, you are requested to join duty from 26-9-1989 after noon., making the register charge report at HO.”
Annexure A2, the appointment order dated 24.09.1989, establishes that the applicant was appointed as a casual labour Night Watchman at Gokak Head Post Office and was directed to join duty from 26.09.1989. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 30.11.1998, Annexure A3 dated 19.03.1999 combined six part-time assignments, with an aggregate workload of eight hours per day, and thereby brought the applicant within the category of Full-Time Casual Labourer. The said order further contemplated that the applicant would work for 240 days at the rate of eight hours per day for three years so as to be treated on par with Temporary Group-D status in terms of the instructions referred to therein. The record does not disclose any satisfactory explanation as to why, despite such long and continuous full-time engagement, the applicant was not accorded the corresponding benefit. The document, at the very least, created a legitimate expectation that the applicant's service would be considered for the benefit contemplated by the applicable scheme and instructions:
| Sl. No. | Part-time position | Work load of the position |
| 1. | Part-time Night Watchman Gokak, H.O. | …. 5 hrs |
| 2. | Part-time waterman, Gokak H.O. | … 1 hr |
| 3. | Part-time Sweeper-cum-Waterman Gokak Fort TSO | …1/2 hrs |
| 4. | Part-time Sweeper-cum-Waterman Gokak Raviwarpeth TSO | …1/2 hrs |
| 5. | Part-time Sweeper-cum-Waterman Gokak Guruwarpeth TSO | …1/2 hrs |
| 6. | Part-time Sweeper-cum-Waterman Gokak College Road TSO …1/2 hrs | |
| Total – 8 hrs |
In the said order, it is further mentioned that he should work for 240 days at the rate of 8 hrs per day during each year for 3 years in order to be treated on par with Temporary Group – D status vide instructions contained in DG(P) New Delhi letter No. 45-26/92-SP B-I dated 22.11.1994 circulated under R.O. letter No. NKR/ESA-I/5004/II dated 02.01.1995. It is not clear from the submissions, as to why pursuant to this letter after 3 years of 240 days/year, having 8 hrs per day work, why the applicant was not treated on par with Temporary Group ‘D’ employee till now? This document certainly instills a legitimate claim in the mind of the applicant to get the said benefits in time. Subsequently, vide Annexure A4 dated 31.01.2023, Bearing No. A2/22/CL/Dlgs/2022, it was mentioned that the applicant should be treated as contingent labours since 02.09.2022 and to draw allowances accordingly up to 5 hrs.
The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure A5) against the decision to revert him from Full-Time Casual Labourer to contingent labourer and thereby reduce his working hours and remuneration.
In the meanwhile, the applicant had filed OA no. 121/2007 wherein an order was passed on 09.01.2008:
“ 3.We are aware of the fact that the respondents had filed a Writ Petition No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is yet to be decided. Orders in O.A.307/2005 have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. In the circumstances of the case, the present O.A is disposed of with direction to the respondents to apply the decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) to the applicant in the present O.A.”
The effect of the order dated 09.01.2008 in OA No. 121/2007 is material. The Tribunal directed the respondents to apply to the present applicant the decision that would be rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT). Thus, the applicant's case was expressly linked to the adjudication in the connected matter and was not left to be reconsidered as an entirely independent claim divorced from the outcome of that litigation.
The respondents have not placed any material before us to establish that the judgment dated 17.11.2011 in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) was challenged further or that it has been stayed, modified or set aside. We therefore proceed on the basis that the said judgment has attained finality and is binding on the parties. The operative direction of the Hon’ble High Court is particularly relevant to the present controversy:
“5.After careful consideration of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, after perusal of the Official Memorandum at Annexure-H and the order of the Tribunal, what emerges is that in the second option given, the petitioners were directed to consider grant of Group-D status to the casual employees who were appointed on or before 02.04.1997. Therefore, the competent authority of petitioners has to take a decision as to whether respondents herein are entitled to the status of Group-D and pass necessary order. That has not been done.
6.Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or de-merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to consider the case of respondents for grant of Group-D status as per the second option given in paragraph 31 of impugned order of the Tribunal, after affording opportunity to the respondents or their counsel and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the matter is not yet considered and disposed of.”
The Hon’ble High Court, while expressly refraining from expressing an opinion on the merits, directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents for grant of Group-D status in terms of the second option contained in paragraph 31 of the Tribunal's order dated 05.05.2006 in OA No.307/2005. The significance of this direction is that the competent authority was required to consider the claim of the class of casual employees covered by that option; it was not open to the authority to reject the claim merely by reverting to the original eligibility criteria without considering the effect of the judicial directions.
The second option in paragraph 31 of the order dated 05.05.2006 specifically contemplated extension of the temporary status Group-D Scheme or formulation of an appropriate fresh scheme for full-time and part-time casual employees appointed on or before 02.04.1997, for their absorption in Group-D posts. The applicant's initial engagement on 24.09.1989 is unquestionably prior to the cut-off date of 02.04.1997. The subsequent order of the Hon’ble High Court therefore had direct relevance to the applicant's case, particularly in view of the earlier order of this Tribunal in OA No.121/2007 directing that the High Court's decision be applied to him.
“(1)Operate the Recruitment Rules of 1989, for such of those recruiting units where necessary, till all eligible full-time and part-time casual labourers (appointed on or before 02.04.1997, the date of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, M/o Communications & Ors. v/s Sakkubai & Anr) are regularised against Group 'vacancies,
Or
(2)Consider the extension of grant-of temporary status group 'D' scheme or formulate an appropriate fresh scheme for full-time and part-time casual employees as mentioned above i.e., who were appointed on or before 02.04.1997, for their absorption in Group 'D' posts.”
Clearly, Hon’ble High Court and their order dated 17.11.2011 was referring to the second part of this particular order, which mentions that consider the extension of grant-of temporary status group 'D' scheme or formulate an appropriate fresh scheme for full-time and part-time casual employees as mentioned above i.e., who were appointed on or before 02.04.1997, for their absorption in Group 'D' posts.
The respondents have not shown that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged or that the policy decision contemplated therein was implemented in respect of the applicant. In the absence of such material, the respondents were required, while reconsidering the applicant's case pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2024 in OA No.124/2023, to give meaningful effect to the binding judicial directions and not merely to reproduce the restrictive conditions of the DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993.
The applicant's initial engagement dated 24.09.1989 is therefore materially prior to the cut-off date of 02.04.1997. More importantly, his subsequent engagement as a Full-Time Casual Labourer from March 1999, by combining six part-time assignments into an aggregate eight-hour working day, continued for more than twenty-three years before the reduction of his working hours in September 2022. These facts have to be examined in the light of the binding directions in the earlier litigation and the subsequent law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(Order in OA No. 124/2023 dated 29.07.2024):
“6.It is not in dispute that earlier the applicant has approached this Tribunal in OA 121/2007. This Tribunal vide order dated 09.01.2008 disposed of the said OA with a direction to the respondents to apply the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.10842/2006, to the applicant. The said Writ Petition No.10842/2006 has been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with the following observations:
"6.Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or de-merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to consider the case of respondents for grant of Group-D status as per the second option given in paragraph 31 of impugned order of the Tribunal, after affording opportunity to the respondents or their counsel and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the matter is not yet considered and disposed of."
7.In view of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.121/2007, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to decide the case of the applicant in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.10842/2006, but surprisingly without adhering to the directions issued by this Tribunal, ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.10842/2006, the impugned order has been passed reducing the working hours of the applicant treating him as the contingent labourer from 02.09.2022 and thereby giving a go by to the services rendered by the applicant with effect from 24.09.1989. Accordingly, the impugned order at; Annexure A4 suffers from infirmities and deserves to be set aside.
Hence the following:
ORDER
1)The impugned order dated 31.01./01.02.2023 (Annexure A4) issued by Respondent No.4, is set aside.
2)The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No.4 to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) (DD:17.11.2011) in view of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA-No.121/2007 dated 09.01.2008 and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
3)OA stands disposed of, in terms of above.
No order as to costs.”
Pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2024 in OA No.124/2023, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2024. The said order, insofar as material to the present controversy, reads as follows:
“This is regarding implementation of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench in OA No.170/124/2023 filed by Shri L R Jogannavar and consideration of his representations dated 30.09.2024 and 22.11.2024 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore.
2.Shri. Laxman R. Jogannavar, was engaged as night watchman at Gokak HO by PM, Gokak HO vide Postmaster Gokak Head Post Office vide letter No: H-1/Watchman/LRJ.89 Gokak dated 25.09.1989 and daily wages was fixed on contingent basis for only five (5) hours, without obtaining prior approval of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gokak Division. The applicant was given an understanding that his services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. The engagement of the applicant was not continuous and terminated regularly between the year 1989 and 1998 in accordance with directions in CO letter No.ESA/1-70/Rlgs dated 12/16.04.1990.
As per the DOPT OM No.5101/6/2/90-Estt© dated 10.09.1993, temporary status can only be granted, if a casual labourer is in service on the date of the notification of the scheme i.e. on 10.09.1993 and have rendered one year of continuous service with 240 days in offices observing 6 days a week (205 days in offices observing 5 days a week). And it is mandatory to engage casual labourer through employment exchange, the casual labourer not engaged through employment exchange would render irregular. The engagement of the applicant was terminated regularly between the year 1989 and 1998.
3.Further as per the Dte. OM No.45-14/91/SPBN-I dated 30.11.1998 received from Regional Office, Dharwad vide Endt. No.NKR/ESA-1/504/II/98 dated 21.12.1998, the applicant was engaged as Full-time Casual Labourer from 22.03.1999 by combining more part time works for 8 hrs at different post offices. Further, on receipt of the directions from CO vide letterNo.ESA/1-79/Dlgs/IV dated 25.07.2022 received vide RO, Dharwad Endt. No.NKR/ESA-1/188 Dated 02.08.2022 for verification of all Full-time casual labourers, the case of the applicant was taken up with RO, as he was not engaged through employment exchange. Further RO, Dharwad vide letter No.NKR/ESA-1/188 dated 29.08.2022 clarified that the engagement of the applicant as FTCL was irregular and he cannot be conferred with temporary status as per the DoPT. OM No.5101/6/2/90-Esst(c) dated 10.09.1993. Accordingly, engagement of the applicant as FTCL was terminated and his work hours was restricted to 5 hrs treating him as contingent labourer vide SPOs Gokak letter No.A2/22/CL/Dlgs/2022 dated 02.09.2022 and further the same was intimated to RO, Dharwad vide letter no.A2/22/CL/Dlgs/2022 dated 31.01.2023.
4.Aggrieved by the decision of the department, the applicant filed the OA No.170/124/2023 before the Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench.
It is pertinent to discuss the CAT order dated 29.07.2024 here, which has a reference to the Judgement dated 17.11.2011 of Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT), and in turn, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Judgement has a reference to the impugned order dated 05.05.2006 in OA No.307/2005 passed by the Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench. The operational part of the order dated 29.07.2024 is reproduced below.
“1)The impugned order dated 31.01/01.02.2023 (Annexure-A4) issued by Respondent No.4, is set aside.
2)The matter is restored to the file of the Respondent no.4 to reconsider the matter in the light of judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) (DD:17.11.2011) in view of the directions issued by the Tribunal in OA NO.121/2007 dated 09.01.2008 and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order."
Para No.5 and 6 of the Judgment dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bengaluru in WP No.10842/2006(S-CAT) are reproduced below.
"5.After careful consideration of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, after perusal of the Official Memorandum at Annexure-H and the order of the Tribunal, what emerges is that, in the second option given, the petitioners were directed to consider grant of Group-D status to the casual employees who were appointed on or before 02.04.1997. Therefore, the competent authority of petitioners has to take a decision as to whether respondents herein are entitled to the status of Group-D and pass necessary order. That has not been done.
6.Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents for grant of Group-D status as per the second option given in paragraph 31 of impugned order of the Tribunal, after affording opportunity to the respondents or their counsel and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the matter is not yet considered and disposed of."
5.As the CAT order dated 05.05.2006 in OA No.307/2005 filed by Devaki and others could not be implemented, the Department filed above Writ Petition No.10842/2006(S-CAT) Para 31 of the impugned order dated 05.05.2006 is reproduced below.
“31.The respondents are now left with two options as given below.
1)Operate the Recruitment Rules of 1989, for such of those recruiting units wherever necessary till all eligible full time and part time casual labourers (appointed on or before 02.04.1997, the date of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in Secretary, M/o Communications &ors. V/s Sakkubai&anr.) are regularised against Group 'D' vacancies.
Or
2)Consider the extension of grant of temporary status group 'D' Scheme or formulate an appropriate fresh scheme for full-time and part-time casual employees as mentioned above i.e. who were appointed on or before 02.04.1997, for their absorption in Group 'D' posts.”
6.As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court order in Writ Petition No.10842/2006(S-CAT) and order dated 29.07.2024 of the Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench in OA No.170/124/2023, the case of the applicant is reconsidered and reexamined in the light of the rules and regulations on the subject.
As per the DOPT OM No.5101/6/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10.09.1993, which provides guidelines for grant of temporary status to the casual labourers, temporary status can only be granted, if a casual labourer is in service on the date of the notification of the scheme i.e. on 10.09.1993 and have rendered one year of continuous service with 240 days in offices observing 6 days a week (205 days in offices observing 5 days a week). And it is mandatory to engage casual labourer through employment exchange, the employment of casual labourer without employment exchange would render irregular.
Whereas in the instant case, Shri L R Jogannavar was not engaged through employment exchange and not rendered required period of service on the date of the notification of the scheme i.e. 10.09.1993 as required by the DOPT OM No.5101/6/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10.09.1993. In view of the above, the applicant doesn't fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions for grant of temporary status. Therefore, request of the applicant for extension of temporary status is rejected.”
Closer look at this order shows that the respondents agree that the applicant Shri L R Jogannavar was engaged as Night Watchman from 25.09.1989 and daily wage was fixed on contingent basis for only 5 hours on work, without obtaining prior approval of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gokak Division, without prior approval from the Superintendent. However, for the purpose of applicant’s rights, the said fact of approval is not relevant at this point of time, is not a material fact for the applicant.
The respondents have stated that the applicant's engagement between 1989 and 1998 was not continuous and that his services were terminated at intervals. However, the mere existence of such breaks cannot, by itself, answer the substantive issue before us. The respondents must also explain the legal basis for the repeated discontinuations, particularly when the work in question continued and the applicant was subsequently re-engaged. The record does not disclose any satisfactory explanation why the alleged breaks, arising from the respondents' own mode of engagement, should operate to defeat consideration of the applicant's long service.
The respondents next rely upon DOPT O.M. No. 5101/6/2/90-Estt(c) dated 10.09.1993, contending that temporary status was available only to a casual labourer who was in service on 10.09.1993 and had completed the prescribed period of service, and that engagement through the Employment Exchange was mandatory. Those conditions cannot, however, be examined in isolation from the subsequent judicial directions specifically applicable to the applicant. The central question is whether the respondents, after being directed to consider the applicant's case in the light of the judgment dated 17.11.2011, could reject the claim simply by applying the original restrictive conditions without addressing the effect of that judgment.
The respondents have also relied upon Annexure R5, containing clarifications issued with reference to the DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993, particularly the clarification that casual employees initially engaged otherwise than through the Employment Exchange and part-time casual employees were not ordinarily entitled to temporary status under that scheme. We do not dispute what the clarification states. The question, however, is whether those general conditions exhaust the consideration required in the applicant's case after the binding judicial directions in his own litigation and in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others.
The question whether part-time status at the inception of engagement and absence of Employment Exchange sponsorship, by themselves, conclusively defeat the applicant's claim has therefore to be examined in the light of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 38426), order dated 20.12.2024, INSC 1034. The factual and legal approach adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case is of particular relevance because the appellants therein also had part-time engagements and had not entered service through the Employment Exchange.
The respondents' own record establishes that, from March 1999 until 02.09.2022, the applicant worked for eight hours a day as a Full-Time Casual Labourer. The respondents have not disputed that this arrangement continued for more than two decades. The subsequent unilateral reduction of his working hours to five hours per day, while the nature of the work continued, required a lawful and reasoned basis. No such legal basis has been demonstrated before us. Long and continuous service in work of a perennial nature cannot be retrospectively neutralised merely by changing the nomenclature of the engagement or by relying upon a procedural defect attributable to the manner in which the department itself engaged the applicant.
Then aggrieved by the decision of the Department, the applicant filed OA No. 124/2023 before Hon’ble CAT Bangalore Bench, wherein an order was passed on 29.07.2024 which had reference to the judgment dated 17.11.2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT), and in turn, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had a reference to the impugned order of earlier CAT order dated 05.05.2006 in OA No. 307/2005. The operational part of the order dated 29.07.2024 essentially was that “The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No.4 to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) (DD:17.11.2011) in view of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA-No.121/2007 dated 09.01.2008 and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.” And that para 5 and 6 of the judgment dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore Bench in Writ Petition No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT) are also reproduced therein.
The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 was passed ostensibly in compliance with the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 29.07.2024. We have therefore examined whether the respondents actually considered the applicant's case in the manner directed. In our view, they have not. The impugned order substantially reiterates the very objections that had already been raised—namely, absence of Employment Exchange sponsorship, the alleged breaks in service and the conditions contained in the DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993—without giving due effect to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 17.11.2011 and the subsequent judicial developments relied upon by the applicant.
The concluding reasoning in the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions of the DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993 and therefore was not eligible for temporary status. That approach overlooks the fact that the applicant's case had already been carried through earlier rounds of litigation in which this Tribunal had directed that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) be applied to him. The reconsideration required by the order dated 29.07.2024 was therefore not an invitation to decide the matter as if those earlier orders did not exist.
When the impugned order is examined in the context of the earlier orders, the legal position becomes clear. The order dated 05.05.2006 in OA No.307/2005 contained two options, and the Hon’ble High Court, by its judgment dated 17.11.2011, specifically directed consideration under the second option. That option contemplated extension of the temporary status Group-D Scheme or formulation of an appropriate fresh scheme for full-time and part-time casual employees appointed on or before 02.04.1997 for their absorption in Group-D posts. The applicant falls within the temporal class expressly identified in that direction.
The respondents were accordingly required to consider the applicant's case in the light of the final judgment dated 17.11.2011, read with the order dated 09.01.2008 in OA No.121/2007 and the order dated 29.07.2024 in OA No.124/2023. A reconsideration which merely repeats the original objection under the DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993, without addressing the legal effect of the aforesaid orders, does not constitute the meaningful reconsideration directed by this Tribunal. The impugned order is consequently vitiated by failure to consider material and binding judicial directions.
From this impugned order dated 12.12.2024 and the contentions of the respondents, their only ground to reject the case of the applicant evident on record is that the applicant was not taken through employment exchange and also he was not in full-time employment (initially 5 hrs of day work) which also they don’t clearly mention, they only mention that the case of the applicant does not come within the purview of DOPT O.M. dated 10.09.1993. If the DOPT O.M. of 10.09.1993 which scope had to be extended as per the Hon’ble High Court directions in the said writ petition No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT), because the respondents have not challenged the said order and neither they have bestowed their minds to implement the same in words and spirit, at this juncture in the third round of repeated and tortuous litigation, in our opinion has to be taken as formally extending scope of 10.09.1993 DOPT OM in terms of the Hon’ble High Court order in WP No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT) . In the case of the applicant, we have to consider that the said O.M. of DOPT dated 10.09.1993 has to be interpreted in a more liberal and constructive way in the light of the final unchallenged and binding order of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT).
The applicant has placed reliance upon Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 38426), order dated 20.12.2024, INSC 1034. The decision assumes significance because the appellants therein were also initially engaged on a part-time basis and were not appointed through the Employment Exchange. We shall therefore examine the ratio and the factual considerations recorded therein against the material facts established in the present case.
The facts of the case as mentioned in the said Apex Court order is following:
“4.The appellants before this Court, being Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 before the Tribunal, were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission2 on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All three were primarily responsible for cleaning and maintaining the office premises under the CWC. Applicant No.5, appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi (also discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi), was entrusted with tasks such as gardening, dusting, and other ancillary maintenance work. Throughout their engagement, these individuals performed essential housekeeping and support functions at CWC establishments, including its offices at Faridabad, ensuring daily upkeep and contributing to the smooth functioning of the Commission's administrative operations.
5.Initially, the appellants sought regularization of their services by filing Original Application No.2211/2015 before the Tribunal. They In short, “CWC” contended that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had evolved beyond the nominal labels of “part-time” or “contractual" and that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC's operations. They relied on applicable government instructions and the principle that long-serving employees, engaged against work of a perennial nature, deserve fair consideration for regularization, provided their appointments were not illegal or clandestine. The Tribunal, by its order dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appellants' plea. It concluded that the appellants were not engaged on what it considered "regular vacancies," that they had not completed what it termed as sufficient "full-time" service (such as meeting a 240-days per year criterion), and that their case did not attract the principles enabling regularization. Within ten days after the dismissal of the original application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all these individuals were abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities without issuance of any show-cause notice.”
The applicant had approached the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6822 of 2018 that prayed the following:
“6.Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision and subsequent termination, the appellants approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 2018 praying for the following reliefs:
"a)Setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2211/2015 titled as Smt. Anita & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., and
b)Directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners to their posts held by them prior to their illegal termination on 27.04.2018 and further to regularize the services of all the petitioners in their respective posts, from the date of their initial appointments with all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.
c)Issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents."
7.They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the (2006) 4 SCC 1 appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.
8.On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us:
(i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade-and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices.
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities- such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks-were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.
(iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement.
(iv). Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi4, they submit that long-serving employees in irregular appointments-who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to consideration for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and (2006) 4 SCC 1 crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination
9.On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:
(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to the permanent or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition.”
On a comparison of the material facts, we find substantial and material correspondence between the present case and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. The applicant before us was initially appointed as a part-time Night Watchman in 1989, without Employment Exchange sponsorship; he was thereafter engaged as a Full-Time Casual Labourer from March 1999 by combining six assignments and was required to work eight hours per day; he continued in that capacity for more than two decades; and his status was subsequently altered by reducing his working hours to five hours per day. The respondents have not disputed the long duration of service or the perennial character of the duties performed. The reasoning of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that long service cannot be brushed aside merely by the label attached to the initial engagement is therefore directly attracted to the present factual matrix:
“10.Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
11.The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12.Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13.The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.” ……….
“16.The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17.As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed-cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.”
The further observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo are also relevant to the manner in which the applicant's long service and the nature of his engagement are required to be assessed. The question is not confined to the nomenclature of "part-time", "casual" or "temporary" engagement, but requires consideration of the sustained nature of the service, the continuity and recurrence of the duties, and the substantive contribution made by the employee over the period of engagement.
“22.The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
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 a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of “Temporary Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26.While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”
The ultimate conclusion reached by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo must likewise be read in the factual setting in which it was rendered. The Court directed reinstatement and regularisation after finding that prolonged engagement in essential and continuing duties could not be disregarded merely because the initial engagement had been described as part-time or contractual. The present case contains the additional feature that the applicant's own earlier litigation had resulted in a binding direction that his case be considered in the light of the judgment dated 17.11.2011 in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT):
“27.In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28.In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i.The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii.The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.
29.There shall be no order as to costs.”
The relief granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo is therefore of direct relevance in determining the relief to which the applicant is entitled in the present case.
We accordingly find that the applicant's case is fully covered, in substance and on the material features, by the principles applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Ors. The respondents' own record establishes that the applicant was appointed as a part-time Watchman in 1989 without Employment Exchange sponsorship, was thereafter made a Full-Time Casual Labourer involving eight hours of work per day from March 1999, and continued in that capacity for more than two decades before his working hours were unilaterally reduced in 2022. Thus, the very features which the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered material in Jaggo are present here. The objection based solely upon the initial mode of engagement or the label of part-time employment cannot, in the circumstances of this case, defeat the applicant's claim for appropriate relief.
The respondents have not placed before us any subsequent judgment which takes a contrary view so as to displace the applicability of Jaggo to the material facts of the present case. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment dated 06.03.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.17031/2021 (S-CAT) and connected matters arising out of OA No.1083/2018, Union of India and Ors. vs. Shanthamma etc., in which Jaggo was taken into consideration. The said decision lends further support to the proposition that the nature and duration of service, rather than nomenclature alone, require consideration in cases of this nature.
The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.29214/2019, Pawan Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., dated 13.02.2026. We note that the appointment in that case was through the Employment Exchange and, therefore, that decision is not directly comparable on the issue of initial mode of engagement. We accordingly place reliance upon it only to the extent that it may otherwise bear upon the legal issue and do not treat it as determinative of the present case.
The applicant's case must therefore be considered cumulatively in the light of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, order dated 20.12.2024, INSC 1034, the final judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated 17.11.2011 in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT), the order of this Tribunal dated 09.01.2008 in OA No.121/2007, and the subsequent order dated 29.07.2024 in OA No.124/2023. The latter order specifically required the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 has failed to give effect to that direction in its true substance.
The applicant's long service, notwithstanding the artificial breaks relied upon by the respondents, is a material circumstance that cannot be ignored. More importantly, the respondents themselves acknowledge the applicant's engagement as a Full-Time Casual Labourer for eight hours a day from 1999 until 02.09.2022. The initial absence of Employment Exchange sponsorship may render the appointment irregular for the purposes of the original scheme; but, in view of the subsequent binding judicial directions and the principles laid down in Jaggo, that circumstance cannot by itself extinguish the consequences of more than two decades of continuous full-time service in perennial work. The respondents cannot derive an advantage from an irregularity in the mode of engagement while disregarding the substantive service actually extracted from the applicant.
We are therefore of the view that the applicant's service from 22.03.1999, when he was engaged as a Full-Time Casual Labourer for eight hours per day, has to be given its due legal effect for the purpose of considering his claim for regularisation, subject to the governing rules and the reliefs directed herein. The respondents' attempt to revert him to five hours per day in 2022, without establishing a lawful basis for such reversion, cannot be sustained.
Annexure A9, the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts notification dated 16.08.2018 bearing the title “Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018”, is also material. Column 10 of the said Rules expressly provides for appointment of specified categories of casual labourers, including part-time casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority. The relevant provision reads as follows:
(iii)(a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, conferred with temporary status on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, failing which;
(b)By appointment of Casual Labourers of the recruiting Division or Unit, engaged on or before the 1" September 1993, working for eight full hours in a day, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, failing which by;
(c)By appointment of part-time Casual Labourers engaged on or before the 1" September 1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority, failing which, the unfilled vacancies shall be added to the number of vacancies to be filled as per (ii) above;
The Recruitment Rules of 2018 thus recognise part-time casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993 as a category eligible to be considered, on the prescribed basis, for appointment to the posts of Multi Tasking Staff. The applicant's initial engagement in September 1989 is therefore within the temporal category expressly contemplated by the Rules. His claim cannot consequently be rejected by treating his initial part-time status as if the Recruitment Rules themselves ignored such employees.
We also take note of the inconsistency in the respondents' stand regarding the date on which the applicant was allegedly reverted from full-time to part-time work. While an earlier stand referred to a reversion in 2008, the subsequent material places the reversion in 2022. The latter position is consistent with the departmental order dated 02.09.2022 and the impugned order dated 12.12.2024. This reinforces the conclusion that the applicant in fact worked as a Full-Time Casual Labourer for the period from 1999 to 2022.
The respondents state that, following verification pursuant to the instructions dated 25.07.2022, the applicant's engagement was treated as irregular because he had not been engaged through the Employment Exchange, and that his working hours were consequently restricted to five hours from 02.09.2022. What is absent, however, is the legal basis empowering the respondents to retrospectively alter the status and working conditions of an employee who had continuously performed eight hours of work for more than two decades. An executive instruction cannot be applied in a manner contrary to binding judicial directions or to defeat rights arising from the applicant's long and accepted service.
The respondents cannot, after having accepted and utilised the applicant's services as a Full-Time Casual Labourer for more than two decades in work of a perennial nature, unilaterally reduce his working hours and remuneration without demonstrating the lawful authority for doing so. The repeated discontinuations relied upon by the respondents during the earlier period also require scrutiny in the context of the nature of the work and the subsequent continuous engagement. The applicant cannot be made to bear the adverse consequences of the department's own method of engagement where the underlying work continued to be available and was continuously performed.
The plea that the applicant was not engaged through the Employment Exchange cannot, in the facts of this case, be treated as an answer to every claim arising from his subsequent service. The respondents were responsible for the manner in which the engagement was made and continued. Having accepted his services over a prolonged period, they cannot rely exclusively upon the procedural irregularity at inception while disregarding the binding judicial directions applicable to his case and the principles subsequently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo.
The respondents have also relied upon the direction dated 24.01.2025 to engage contingent workers on daily wages and not to continue any individual beyond five days. Such an arrangement, when applied to the present applicant after his long period of eight-hour service, cannot by itself answer the legality of his discontinuation. The relevant question is whether the applicant's services could lawfully be discontinued or his status altered in the manner adopted, particularly after the earlier judicial directions and in the light of the perennial nature of the work.
The principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be read as authorising a public employer to disregard binding judicial directions or to use the absence of regular appointment as a reason for perpetuating an otherwise unjustified and indefinitely precarious engagement. The distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment, and the relevance of long service in the circumstances recognised by the applicable law, have to be kept in view. The present case must therefore be decided on the totality of its facts, the applicable Recruitment Rules, the earlier binding orders concerning the applicant, and the subsequent law declared in Jaggo.
On the material placed before us, the applicant's services were in fact discontinued around January 2025, notwithstanding the respondents' contention that there was no formal termination order. The applicant's representation dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure RJ-1), seeking reinstatement, remains unanswered. Whether described as an oral termination, discontinuation or cessation of engagement, the substance of the action is that the applicant was prevented from continuing the work he had been performing. In the absence of a lawful basis and due procedure, such discontinuation cannot be sustained.
The applicant's representation dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure RJ-1), seeking reinstatement into service, has admittedly not been answered. This circumstance further demonstrates that the respondents have not brought their action into conformity with the requirements flowing from the earlier judicial orders and the law applicable to the applicant's case.
The applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8157/2024, Shripal and Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, wherein the principles in Jaggo (supra) were again considered. The observations reproduced below are relevant, particularly insofar as they address abrupt discontinuation of long-serving workers engaged in perennial duties and the impermissibility of leaving such workers in perpetual uncertainty:
“16.The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17.In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18.The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
19.In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.
20.All pending applications stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.”
The above decision, while arising in the context of the statutory provisions applicable to the workmen before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reinforces the broader principle relevant here: once prolonged engagement in perennial duties and an unjustified discontinuation are established, the employer cannot rely merely upon administrative or procedural considerations to perpetuate an uncertain status. In the present case, these considerations operate alongside the applicant's own binding judicial history and the 2018 Recruitment Rules.
On a cumulative consideration of the pleadings, the documentary record, the respondents' own admissions, the earlier orders passed in the applicant's litigation, the Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018, and the judgments relied upon by the applicant, we record the following findings of fact and law. The applicant entered service as a part-time casual Night Watchman in September 1989, well before 02.04.1997; his initial engagement was not through the Employment Exchange; in March 1999 the Department itself combined six part-time assignments and engaged him as a Full-Time Casual Labourer for eight hours per day; that arrangement continued for more than two decades; and only in September 2022 were his working hours unilaterally reduced to five hours per day and his status altered to contingent labour. The respondents have not established a lawful basis for retrospectively disregarding this long period of accepted full-time service or for giving no meaningful effect to the binding directions flowing from OA No.121/2007, W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) and OA No.124/2023. The applicant's case therefore cannot be determined merely by the label attached to his initial engagement or by the procedural circumstance that he was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange. The words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo are particularly apposite: “the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual”; and the essence of the employment has to be considered in the light of “their sustained contribution” and “the integral nature of their work”. The same reasoning applies with even greater force to the present record, where the Department itself converted the applicant's six part-time assignments into an eight-hour full-time engagement and accepted his services for more than twenty years. Likewise, the observations in Shripal that workers engaged in essential, perennial duties “cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty” and that “bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period” materially support the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to meaningful relief, while the precise statutory provisions applied in Shripal are not themselves being imported into the present service dispute. On these facts, and read with the final and unchallenged directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.10842/2006 (S-CAT) and the 2018 Recruitment Rules, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for the reliefs claimed, subject to the consequential directions set out below.
Accordingly, we pass the following orders:
ORDER:
The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 No. GKK/F2/LC/LRJ/OA 170.1104/2023 (Annexure A-5) issued by Respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside.
As the applicant has been Full-Time Casual Labourer since 19.03.1999 as per the Department of Posts Memo No. A-2/22/CL/99 at Gokak, he has successfully completed 3 years with 8 hrs/day work. Hence, as per the said memo, consider him and treat him on par with the temporary Group-D status employee vide instructions contained in DG(P), New Delhi letter No. 45-26/92-SPB-I dated 22.11.1994 circulated under R.O. letter No. NKR/ESA-I/5004/II dated 02.01.1995 with effect from 19.03.2002.
And as he has successfully completed more than two decades of service after 2002. Hence, consider his service for regularisation as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in accordance with Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2018 with immediate effect or from the date of his being eligible, whichever is earlier under the said Rule, reckoning his qualifying service in the light of his full-time engagement from 22.03.1999 and binding direction in WP No. 10842/2006 (S-CAT) as applied to him by the order dated 09.01.2008 in OA No. 121/2007 and the order dated 29.07.2024 in OA No. 124/2023 and consistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).
In making the aforesaid consideration, the respondents shall not reject the applicant’s claim solely on the ground that his initial engagement was part-time or was not through the Employment Exchange or he has not attained any specific qualification mentioned in the rule, considering the effect of his long and accepted service, the judicial directions applicable to his case and the provisions of the Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2018.
The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise by passing a reasoned speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall communicate the same to the applicant forthwith.
The period for which the applicant was prevented from discharging the 8 hrs service from 2022 onwards including the period of discontinuation after January 2025, shall be dealt with as regular 8 hrs service and accordingly considered for entitlements of full wage and other consequential benefits.
Insofar as the prayer for initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings is concerned, no separate contempt proceedings are initiated in the present Original Application. The finding recorded herein that the respondents failed to give due effect to the binding judicial directions shall, however, be kept in view while implementing this order.
The Original Application stands allowed in the above terms. Accordingly, all pending MA(s), if any shall be treated as disposed of. No order as to costs.