2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2769

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Janak Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Central Board Of Direct Taxes – Respondent
O.A./225/2025

Long-serving casual employees performing perennial duties, whose similarly situated counterparts were regularized, are entitled to regularization to prevent discrimination under Article 14, as the state as a constitutional employer cannot use temporary labels to evade obligations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Service law - Regularization of casual employees - The State as a constitutional employer cannot use temporary labels to evade long-term obligations. Long-term engagement on perennial work, even if initially irregular, can create a right to regularization. The principles of equal treatment under Article 14 require that similarly situated employees be regularized to prevent discrimination. (Paras 5, 8)

(B) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 14 and 19 - Jurisdiction of CAT - Casual employees are 'persons' under the Act and their service matters, including claims for regularization, fall within CAT's jurisdiction. The decision in Department of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb (2008 INSC 592) affirms this, overruling the objection that such matters are not maintainable. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was engaged as a casual employee in the Income Tax Department from 09.10.2001, serving continuously for over 25 years. The respondents did not dispute that 18 casual workers in the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized on 04.03.2011, and 64 in the Lucknow Commissionerate were regularized on 17.02.2025, retrospectively from 22.01.2010. The applicant sought similar regularization, citing discrimination. The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was not a holder of a civil post and the OA was not maintainable. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal overruled the maintainability objection, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Keshab Deb that CAT has jurisdiction over casual employees' service matters. On merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant had served for 25 years performing perennial duties, and similarly situated employees had been regularized. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 998), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC Online SC 129), and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2026 INSC 156), the Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to regularization. (Paras 4-8)

Issues: 1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an OA filed by a casual employee seeking regularization. 2. Whether a casual employee with long, continuous service on a perennial post is entitled to regularization. 3. Whether the denial of regularization to the applicant, when similarly situated employees were regularized, constitutes discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 4,5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of precedent under Article 141 and the principle of equality under Article 14 require that identically situated employees be treated alike. The Supreme Court's decisions in Jaggo, Dharam Singh, and others establish that long-serving casual employees performing perennial duties cannot be denied regularization based on the initial label of their engagement or the lack of a selection process. The state, as a constitutional employer, must ensure fair engagement practices and cannot use 'temporary' labels to exploit workers. (Paras 5, 8, 9)

Result: The OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the applicant with effect from the date others were regularized and grant all consequential benefits within 90 days. (Para 9, 10)