CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK CORAM:

Reserved on 23.02.2026 Pronounced on 05.03 .2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

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

Saroj Kumar Taria, aged about 46 years, Son of Late Nilamani Taria, a permanent resident of At- Mudipada, Near Bullet Byam Sala, Sambalpur, Pin- 768002 at present working as MTS in the office of the ITO Ward 2(1), Sambalpur. VERSUS ……Applicant

1. Union of India represented through its Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Dehi-110 001.

2. Principal Directorate General of Income Tax (HRD), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 2nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Gate No. 1, New Delhi 110003.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha Region, Ayakara Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN-751 007.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Dist.

Sambalpur. Pin-768004;

5. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur, Govt. of India, O/o. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Dist.

Sambalpur. Pin-768004;

……Respondents For the applicant : M/s J.M.Pattnaik, J.R.Behera Counsel For the respOo n Rd e n Dts : ME r .R D .Sethi, 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 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 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 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 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 f