Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2766

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Pravat Suna – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./240/2025

Advocates:
For the applicant: M/s J.M.Pattnaik, J.R.Behera
For the respondents: R.R.K.Sarangi

Long-serving casual employees (25+ years) in perennial roles entitled to regularization despite irregular initial engagement, with parity to similarly regularized peers; CAT has jurisdiction; violates Articles 14/16 to discriminate.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal - Casual/daily wage employees seeking regularization of services - Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain such applications despite contentions of lack of civil post status or absence of selection process, overruling objections based on prior judicial views; reliance on Supreme Court precedents affirming CAT's authority over workmen-like claims. (Paras 4, 5)

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - Service jurisprudence - Regularization of long-serving casual employees - Prolonged continuous service (over 25 years) in perennial roles entitles regularization with consequential benefits, even if initial engagement lacked selection or sanctioned posts; distinguishes illegal from irregular appointments, prohibits discrimination against similarly situated employees regularized elsewhere; outsourcing or temporary labels cannot shield exploitation or deny parity. (Paras 5-9)

(C) Precedents - Article 141 - Binding nature - Law declared by Supreme Court on regularization applies uniformly to all similarly placed casual workers; failure to extend benefits to identical cases violates equality; Umadevi principles not to penalize long-service but to curb backdoor entries, allowing affirmative directions for supernumerary posts and arrears. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Casual employee served uninterruptedly for over 25 years since 01.11.2001 as multi-tasking staff; overaged for fresh employment; similar casual workers in other commissionerates regularized (18 in one vide order dated 04.03.2011; 64 in another retrospectively w.e.f. 22.01.2010); sought regularization citing discrimination and Supreme Court rulings.

Findings of Court:
Jurisdiction upheld; entitlement to regularization from date of comparators' regularization established; directions issued for compliance within 90 days, granting service and financial benefits per Supreme Court precedents.

Issues: Maintainability of OA by casual employee before CAT; entitlement to regularization despite irregular initial engagement and long service; applicability of Supreme Court precedents distinguishing irregular appointments and prohibiting discriminatory non-regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: CAT has jurisdiction over casual employees' regularization claims; long continuous service in perennial duties mandates regularization to uphold equality, rejecting temporary/outsourcing justifications; Supreme Court law binds uniformly, requiring parity with regularized peers.

Result: OA allowed; respondents directed to regularize applicant with benefits within 90 days.

Table of Content
1. applicant's 25-year casual service undisputed. (Para 1)
2. casual workers lack regularization rights; no jurisdiction. (Para 2)
3. cat has jurisdiction over casual employee regularization claims. (Para 3 , 4)
4. long-service casuals entitled to regularization despite irregular entry. (Para 6)
5. income tax casuals regularized per supreme court precedents. (Para 7)
6. supreme court law binds; similar employees must be equalized. (Para 8)

Counsel 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 25 years since 01.11.2001 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 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of India and Others, Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State2 o0f2 U4 .SPC &C OAnnLointhee SrC, 3826, Sh(Criipvial lA apnpdea Al nNro.. 8v5r5s8.

oNfa 2g0a1r8 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 01.11.2001 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’nbalet 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 Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2766

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative MemberPravat Suna – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A./240/2025

Long-serving casual employees (25+ years) in perennial roles entitled to regularization despite irregular initial engagement, with parity to similarly regularized peers; CAT has jurisdiction; violates Articles 14/16 to discriminate.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Pravat Suna – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./240/2025