Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2767

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Saroj Kumar Taria – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00239 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.M.Pattnaik, J.R.Behera
For the Respondents: R.D.Sethi

Casual employees engaged for perennial public duties for extended periods are entitled to regularization and parity with similarly situated employees, provided the work is ongoing and the refusal to regularize is arbitrary, notwithstanding the lack of sanctioned posts at the initial initiation of service.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 141 - Regularization of casual employees - Doctrine of Precedents - Casual employees seeking regularization who have served for over two decades cannot be denied parity when similarly situated employees were regularized - Failure to extend benefits granted to similarly situated persons results in discrimination - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 14 and 15 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to adjudicate regularization of casual workers. (Paras 4, 8 and 9)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - Courts must look beyond superficial labels of 'temporary' or 'causal' when work is perennial in nature - Long-term engagement of casual labour cannot be justified as an exploitative shield - Employer's failure to maintain sanctioned posts does not negate the right to fair treatment for those performing essential duties. (Paras 4, 11 and 17)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was engaged as a casual employee in the Income Tax Department since 1998 and had completed 27 years of service. He sought regularization citing the regularization of similar casual workers in other Commissionerates and the principle of equality under the Constitution. The respondents contested the maintainability of the O.A. before the Tribunal and argued that the applicant was not appointed against sanctioned posts.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. It observed that the applicant was entitled to parity with similarly situated casual employees who had been regularized in other departments. It concluded that perpetuating 'ad hocism' for perennial work is exploitative and arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the O.A. filed by a casual employee is maintainable before the Tribunal, and whether the applicant is entitled to regularization based on long service and parity with other regularized employees?

Ratio Decidendi: The persistent long-term engagement of casual workers for perennial duties, coupled with the regularization of similarly situated individuals, establishes a right to regularization, as non-extension of such benefits constitutes arbitrary discrimination contrary to constitutional principles.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. nature of employment and parties' contentions regarding regularization. (Para 1 , 2)
2. maintainability of oa before tribunal and rejection of preliminary objections. (Para 4 , 6)
3. applicability of precedent and constitutional parity for similarly situated employees. (Para 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 30.11.1998 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 service and financial benefits retrospectively as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of India and Others, Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025), Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2025 SCC Online SC 221, Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 SCC Online SC 129, 2026 INSC 156, and Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 654/2015 (Manoranjan Naik & Ors Vs UOI & Ors) dated 10.02.2026 in the case of Manoranjan Naik (supra) 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 Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 4601/2003 in the case of Bhaskar Dora & Ors. 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 against any sanctioned post. The applicant was engaged on casual basis from 30.11.1998 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 compliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. 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 stated 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 of 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 CAT but no copy of such decision has been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2767

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative MemberSaroj Kumar Taria – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentO.A.No. 260/00239 of 2025

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Saroj Kumar Taria – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00239 of 2025