Introduction
In Subhash v. Union of India & Others, O.A. 1077 of 2013, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench has by an order dated 07.04.2026, rejected a case of regularisation, temporary position, and arrears of salary brought before the Tribunal by a claimant claiming to have continuously served as a casual worker of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (“BSNL”) from 1996 onwards. The order was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) on behalf of the Bench consisting of himself and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J), observing that without any evidence of valid appointment, muster roll or receipt of salary as per records of a competent authority, there cannot be any direction for regularisation irrespective of how much the period of service is claimed.
Factual Background
The appellant, Subhash, alleged that he was engaged as a part-time casual laborer at the office of Sub-Divisional Engineer (“S.D.E.”), Phones, Telephone Exchange, Angarh, District Mirzapur in April 1996, under the control and supervision of Telecom District Manager, Mirzapur and has been working till 19.09.2013.
Though formally engaged for work of four hours per day, he alleged that he has been performing more than eight hours of work every day without any break at Hurua Exchange, Mirzapur. Relying on the case of Jagriti Mazdoor Union v. Manager, Telecom Nigam Limited (1989), wherein the Apex Court held that casual laborers having performed work for 240 days in a calendar year qualify for temporary status.
Whereas casual laborers having completed three years after that would be placed at par with Group ‘D’ employee, he further relied on a number of circulars issued between 1999 and 2006 by the Department of Telecommunications, CGMT, U.P. (East) Circle and BSNL regarding conversion of part-time casual laborers into full-time employment and later regularising them as Group ‘D’ Mazdoors, stating that several of his juniors have also been converted and regularised as such.
Contentions of the Parties
It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had been employed since April 1996 and performed the work of more than eight hours per day, which fulfilled the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the circulars issued by the department in regard to the conversion to full time status and subsequent regularisation of the appellant as Group ‘D’ Mazdoor despite there being an ongoing ban on the recruitment of employees in the area, several of his juniors having been regularised under the same circulars.
It was contended that the original Log Book of the appellant from January 2011 to May 2013, signed by him, established beyond doubt that he was regularly working and that the impugned order of rejection dated 21.11.2013 did not take into consideration important annexures that were filed before the Tribunal, one of which being a recommendation made by Respondent No. 5 in favour of his regularisation, which the appellant called a masterpiece of working and recommendation.
Counsel for BSNL argued that there existed an outright ban on any further recruitment and engaging of casual workers since 1985, and that the Scheme adopted in 1989 by the applicant only covered casual laborers who had one year continuous employment with the specific government sanction that was clearly never granted in his case. Reference was made to the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi delivered by the Constitution Bench to argue that appointments in contravention of the Rules cannot be regularized merely because of the fact that Rules allow the regularization of such irregular but sanctioned appointments.
Findings of the Tribunal
The Tribunal held that the respondents have formed a three member committee to examine the office records and find out that there were no particulars of payments made in the name of the applicant and came to a conclusion that he was never engaged with the department. The applicant has not been able to produce any appointment letter neither before the Tribunal nor before the respondents but only a copy of the muster roll and a recommendation without date having the stamp of an official who was not competent to give such a recommendation.
While distinguishing the cases relied upon by the applicant which are Jaggo v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. and even the order of the Tribunal in Masan Ali v. Union of India, the Tribunal observed that while in the case of Masan Ali, the applicants although engaged during the period of ban were regularized and terminated which shows that there was some official acknowledgement of the engagement of those persons whereas in the instant case, no regularization order was ever issued and there was also no termination order in writing.
Additionally, it was observed by the Tribunal that in previous cases of contempt of court, the applicant himself had applied for sufficient time to locate his appointment letter, which was never found, and ruled that the case of Mohammad Sagir v. Nagar Nigam Kanpur was distinct from this case because, in the latter case, there was a clear denial of engagement by the employer, which was not the case in the former one.
AMLEGALS Remarks
In the case, the emphasis in the legal history concerning the regularisation of casual/temporary employees in public sector units that sympathy for long-term services cannot take the place of satisfactory documentary evidence of valid engagement. Although cases like Jaggo and Shripal have shown that the judicial attitude towards regularisation of exploited temporary employees has changed in favour of them, but it can be seen that such a decision assumes the fact that the very existence of engagement has not been brought into question. In situations where the institutional records of the employer, after due enquiry by a committee, do not reveal any information regarding the engagement and pay of the claimant, then it becomes unlikely that the tribunal would regularise the claimant based on his years of service.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com