1. The petitioner was admittedly engaged as casual labourer in the services of the respondents in the year 1991; thereafter, granted “temporary status” with effect from 01.09.1993. Her grievance is that she was never offered regularization until she ceased to be in service in the year 2013; and asserts that, hence, she had no other option but to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam (CAT) seeking such relief.

2. Sri.K Ravi (Pariyarath) - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when his client was in service continuously from the year 1991 till 2013, she became entitled to the benefit of regularization, as postulated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi  and others [2006 (4) SCC 1]. He contended that the respondents were obliged, under the afore binding precedent, to have conducted an enquiry qua the persons eligible for regularization, but that it has never been done; and resultantly that his client was left high and dry, even though she had worked continuously for twenty years and more. He prayed that, therefore, the final order of the learned Tribunal, which has dismissed the original application of his client, be set aside and the reliefs sought by her be granted.

3. Smt.O.M.Shalina -Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), countered the afore submissions, saying that this is not a case where the petitioner had approached any judicial forum before she had ceased to be in service. She contended that, even going by Umadevi (supra), there was no obligation on the Department to have conducted any kind of enquiry and that this was a discretion available with it, as a one time measure. She argued that, when there were no posts available in the services and when the petitioner admits that she was appointed initially as a casual labourer, then having been granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 under a Scheme, she cannot seek regularization as a matter of right. She explained that this is more so because, as has also been found by the learned Tribunal, there were two other Schemes for regularization propounded by the respondents when the petitioner was in service, but that she was not eligible for want of qualification and requisite physical attributes. She then pointed out that, in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal also has found factually that the regularization of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were considered at the relevant time, but that they were incapacitated from being offered such for the afore reasons; and hence that the present attempt is untenable.

4. We have evaluated the rival submissions of the parties, on the touch stone of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.

5. It is rather crucial that the petitioner herself admits that she had ceased to be in service in the year 2013, but had approached the learned Tribunal only in the year 2019 seeking “retrospective” regularization. The edifice of her claim is that a person by name “Kathireshan” - who was also earlier a casual employee, with temporary status having been given on 01.09.1993 - was offerred regular status, even after he died by treating it as a “posthumous regularization”.

6. We are at a loss to understand how a person could have been given “posthumous regularization”; and can only construe that, for some reason, the afore mentioned individual had been granted retiral benefits, construing him to have been regularised while he was in service. We do not know under what manner this was done; and it is admitted by the petitioner herself that this was not under a Scheme or any such.

7. Even assuming that the aforementioned Shri.Kathireshan had been given such “regularisation”, it would not be prudent or available to this Court to direct the respondents to do so qua others, when there are no provisions of law supporting such a course.

8. That apart, when the petitioner unequivocally admits that she has “retired” from service in the year 2013, there was no question of any regularization having been offered to her in a retrospective manner, on a plea that she has raised in the year 2019. Of course when we say this, we are fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri.K.Ravi - learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client had been approaching the respondents for the relief while she was in service, but not granted.

9. The surviving issue is whether there was a duty on the respondents to have mandatorily conducted an enquiry for the purpose of regularization under the mandate of Umadevi (supra). We cannot find any such obligation having been cast upon any Department, but it would have been certainly open to the petitioner to approach a competent judicial forum to seek that such be done under its purlieus. When the petitioner concedes she has not done so, but had approached the learned Tribunal only in the year 2019, namely six years after her retirement, we cannot find her claim to be worthy of consideration or grant.

                  In the afore circumstances, we obtain no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Tribunal; and consequently dismiss this Original Petition.