CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK CORAM:

Reserved on 19.11.2025 Pronounced on 26.11 .2025 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Rabindra Kumar Mallick, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Kailash Chandra Mallick, AT/PO- Ratnagiri, PS- Bari Ramachandrapur, Dist- Jajpur, At present working as a casual worker awarded with 1/30 status at Archaeological .

Survey of India museum AT/PO-Ratnagiri, PS-

Bari Ramachandrapur, Dist-Jajpur, Odisha ……Applicant V ERSUS

1. Union of India, Represented through, the Secretary Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, 110001.

2. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Purattatwa Bhawan, 24 Tilak Marg, New Delhi, 110011.

3. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Purattatwa Bhawan, AT/PO- Sarmantrapur, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, Odisha.

4. Asst. Superintending Archaeologist for museum, Archaeological Survey of India, AT/PO-

Ratnagiri, Dist-Jajpur, Odisha.

5. Bhagirathi Behera, Aged about-53 years, Presently working as Monument Attendant, Archaeological Survey of India Site, Haripur Garh, Haripur, Dist- Jajpur, Odisha.

6. Gangadhar Nayak, aged about-47 years, at present working as Monument attendant, Office of the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Purattatwa Bhawan, AT/PO- Samantrapur, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, Odisha.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Singh, Counsel For the respondents : Mr. P.R.J.Dash, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Heard. Perused the pleadings taken in the OA, counter filed by the respondents and rejoinder thereto filed by the applicant.

2. Untrovertibly and undisputedly, the applicant has been continuing to discharge his duties under the respondents as a casual employee over a period of 3 and ½ decades, i.e. since th

03.12.1990, and is in receipt of 1/30 pay as per order dated

31.03.2003.

3. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of its Secretary, State of Karnataka earlier decisions in the cases of & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others Jaggo Vs. Union of India, , (2006) 4 SCC 1, Shripal &

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and in Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Dharam Singh Vs St a t 0 e 2 o 5 f U SC P C , OnLine SC

221, in the case of 2025 INSC 998, summarized on the right of regularization of person(s) continuing on casual/ad hoc/daily wage/contractual basis long since as“1 u1n. Fduerrth: e rmore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:

“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are