CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 20.01.2026 Pronounced on 22.0 1.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Ranjan Kumar Behera, aged about 37 years, Son of Muralidhar Behera, working as Part Time casual worker, in Rajkanika SO. Under Kendrapada HO -754202.

……Applicant VERSUS

1. Union of India represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2. Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda-751001.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack North Division, Cuttack-753001.

4. The Inspector of Posts, Pattamundai Sub-

Division, Pattamundai, Kendrapara-754202.

5. The Sub-Post Master, Rajkanika BO, under Kendrapara HO-754202.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is the case of the applicant that he is a Matriculate and registered his name in the Employment Exchange. He was engaged in the sweeping work of the office of the Rajkanika SO under Kendrapara HO on 05.05.2001 on casual basis and since then has been rendering dedicated service of sweeping work in the office and, in the process, he became overaged to be engaged in any other job. There are several vacancies available under the respondents in Group–D/MTS and GDS. During his engagement, he was also paid higher rate of wages whenever there was any enhancement of the wages by the Govt. He ventilated his grievance before his authority seeking regularization and states that since no favourable consideration was given to his request, he approached this Bench in the instant OA seeking direction to the respondents to regularize him against any existing Group-

D/MTS or GDS post.

2. In the counter, the respondents did not dispute the fact the applicant has been discharging his duties as Sweeper in the office since 2001. However, it is stated that the applicant has not been engaged or continuing as casual worker. He was engaged and paid out of the contingency fund and, hence, his engagement cannot be treated at par with the casual worker. He was not engaged through due process of selection or after sponsoring his name from Employment Exchange. Even though the applicant has completed 18 years as contingent paid worker, he is not entitled to get appointment in any Group-D post since the status of contingent paid worker is purely contractual and it can be terminated at any point of time. Thus, availability of vacancy in Group-D/MTS is irrelevant when the applicant is not eligible to be regularized. It is further stated that regularization of his service in Group-D post would not have been denied had he satisfied all the conditions of his engagement as laid down in the OM issued by the DoP&T. According to the respondents, they are not responsible for his being overaged. There are certain type of works which need appointment of regular employee and the Sweeper cum Gardener is not considered to be a post since the said work can be managed by a contingent paid employee. It is stated that the representation of the appliant has meanwhile rejected. The respondents have also relied on various OMs issued by the DSotPa&teT o af nTda mthieln daedcui sViosn A o.Sf itnhgea Hmount’hbule Apex Court in the case of , (2017) 4 SCC 113 to state that part timer casual employee is mean to serve exigencies of administration and continuance of such service for long years confers no right to be regularized. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties have reiterated their stand point noted above in course of hearing. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placedD rhelaiaranmce Soinn tghhe &d eOcrissi ovns oSft athtee oHfo Un.’Pbl &e AApnerx Court in the case of , 2025 INSC 998 to justify and fortify his claim. Having heard them at length, we have perused the records.

4. Admittedly, the applicant has bee