Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2765

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Hrusikesh Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00241 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.M.Pattnaik, J.R.Behera
For the Respondents: S. K.Varma

Casual employees engaged in perennial public functions for long durations are entitled to regularization; the State cannot discriminate against them by denying benefits afforded to identically situated workers, as such arbitrary treatment violates the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Regularization of casual employees - Doctrine of equality in public employment - Discrimination among similarly situated employees - Applicant served for 27 years as casual employee - Respondents regularized similarly situated workers in other regions - Held, discriminatory treatment is violative of Article 14.

(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by casual employees seeking regularization in Civil Posts - Section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act does not exclude CAT's authority in such service matters.

Facts of the case:
The applicant commenced service as a casual Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) on 01.10.1998 and has served uninterruptedly for 27 years. He claimed regularization on the ground that similarly situated casual workers in other regions (Bhubaneswar and Lucknow) were regularized by the department, alleging discrimination and violation of constitutional protections.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that long-term casual engagement on perennial work cannot be used to justify indefinite exploitation. Relying on settled precedents, the Tribunal overruled objections to the maintainability of the application and held that the applicant is entitled to be treated similarly to co-workers who were already regularized.

Issues: Whether the application is maintainable before the CAT and if the applicant, having served for 27 years as a casual employee, is entitled to regularization on par with similarly situated employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The State as a constitutional employer cannot balance budgets by exploiting perennial workers; once the nature of work is permanent, indefinite ad-hocism is arbitrary. Article 141 mandates following Supreme Court precedents, and identical benefits must be extended to all similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination.

Result: Application considered favorably based on the consistency of the law developed by the Supreme Court.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and the jurisdictional challenge regarding casual employees' regularization claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court establishes cat's jurisdiction and mandates equal treatment for identically situated casual workers based on supreme court precedents. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is not in dispute that the applicant has been serving the department as a casual employee over a period of 27 years since 01.10.1998 uninterruptedly till date and became overaged to seek for any employment in government. Also, the respondents did not dispute the fact that 18 casual workers working in Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized vide order dated 04.03.2011 and 64 similar causal workers working under Lucknow Commissionerate were also regularized vide order No. 130 dated 17.02.2025 retrospectively w.e.f. 22.01.2010. According to the applicant/Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is also entitled to regularization and all consequential servile and financial benefits retrospectivelJya gasg op eVr rtsh.e U dneicoisni oonf oInf dthiae aHnodn ’bOleth Aepresx, Court in the cases of Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State2 o0f2 U4 .SPC &C OAnnLiotnee SrC, 3826, (Civil Appeal No.8558 Shripal and Anr. vrs. oNfa 2g0a1g8 N, idgiaspmos, eGd hoafz ioanb a1d9.,0 8.2025), Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand2 0a2n5d SOCCrs O, nLine SC 221, 2026 SCC Online SC Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 129, 2026 INSC 156, and Full Bench of thiMs Tarnibournaanlj iann O NA aNiok. 6&5 4O/r2s0 1V5s d UaOtedI 1&0 .O02r.s2.0,26 in the case of in order to remove the injustice caused to him by way of discrimination, which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondents have filed their counter opposing and contesting the case of the applicant on the grounds that since the applicant is not a holder of civil post, OA filed by causal/daily wage employee before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to regularize is not maintainable as held by the HonB’bhlaes Hkaigrh D Courrat Vofs O UrOIsIs a& i On Wrs.P(C) No. 4601/2003 in the case of . The present case being one and the same, therefore, this Bench lacks jurisdiction to entertain this OA and this OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The applicant was not engaged through any process of selection or his engagement was again any sanctioned post. The applicant was engaged on casual basis from 01.10.1998 and, thus, he did not complete 10 years of continuous engagement as on 10.04.2006 for which he was not regularized along with 18 causal labourers, who were regularized having completed 10 years continuous engagement on casual basis as on 10.04.2006 as per the order of the competent authority issued in complianceS oefc trheet adreyc,is ioStna otef thoef HKoanr’balet akAap eVxs UCmouart D einv i,th (2 e 0 06 c ) a 4 s e S CC o 1 f . The engagement of the applicant was purely temporary in nature on payment of wages @ applicable from time to time. Thus, consistence performance over certain length of time does not confer any right on him to claim regularization. It is Jsatgatgeod that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (supra) has no application since the facts involved in the said case is different and distinguished to the case in hand.

3. After giving a thread bearing consideration to the points raised by the parties in course of hearing, we have perused the pleadings taken in the OA, counter, rejoinder so also short note filed by the applicant. We have also gone through the decisions and documents placed by the parties.

4. Since, the respondents raised the point of maintainability of this OA, we would like to deal the same at the first instance. Respondents in their counter have placed reliance on the decision on the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhaskar Dora (supra) in support of the stand that the applicant being a casual employee, this OA is not maintainable before the CA

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2765

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative MemberHrusikesh Sahoo – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentO.A.No. 260/00241 of 2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Hrusikesh Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00241 of 2025