IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation – There can be no discrimination in the matter of regularizing services of similarly situated employees.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants having registered themselves with the Employment Exchange claim to have worked as casual workers with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior for a considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would be conferred temporary status and their services would be thereafter regularized, the appellants initially made representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench¹ [For short the ‘Tribunal’] by preferring Original Application No. 719 of 2012 with a prayer to consider their cases for regularization in service. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 13.05.2015 held that the services of the appellants were not liable to be regularized on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on 10.04.2006 in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 INSC 216. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the aforesaid decision. By the judgment dated 26.08.2019, the High Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid adjudication and dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied by the said judgment, the appellants have come up in appeal.

3. Facts material for considering the case as set-up by the appellants are that appellants No. 1 to 3 came to be engaged as casual workers on the post of Sweeper from 01.10.1997, 01.05.1998 and 01.10.1997 respectively. Appellant No. 4 was casually engaged on the post of Cook from 27.12.1993. It is their case that their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and after being duly interviewed, they were engaged as daily workers. According to them, in terms of Circulars dated 04.07.2011 and 10.01.2012, the Income Tax Department proceeded to outsource the work that was being done by the appellants. They made various representations seeking regularization of their services considering the period of service rendered by them as casual workers. It is further the case of the appellants that services of similarly placed casual workers were directed to be regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in Ravi Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2018 vide judgment dated 13.03.2018. In the light of the fact that services of similarly situated casual workers had been regularized by the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, the appellants sought similar treatment. Relying upon the decision in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 INSC 1034, it is urged that the engagement of the appellants could only be termed as “irregular” and not “illegal.” The fact that the work undertaken by the appellants was sought to be outsourced indicated that the said work was of a perennial nature and that only with a view to deprive the appellants of the benefit of regularization, the outsourcing policy was being implemented. On these counts, the appellants prayed for appropriate relief.

4. According to the Income Tax Department, the services of the appellants are not liable to be regularized since their eligibility in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi and Others (supra) of having rendered continuous service for ten years or more as on 10.04.2006 was not satisfied by them. In absence of any sanctioned post available at Gwalior, their services were not liable to be regularized. The engagement of the appellants was merely of a casual nature and their services were subsequently being engaged through a contractor on contractual basis. It is, thus, the case of the Income Tax Department that the Tribunal and thereafter, the High Court having rightly denied relief to the appellants, there was no reason to interfere with that adjudication.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have also p