ORDER

1.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 09.10.2001 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 wef. 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 retrospectively as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025), Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129, Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, and Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 654/2015 dated 10.02.2026 in the case of Manoranjan Naik & Ors Vs UOI & Ors., 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 Curt of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 4601/2003 in the case of Bhaskar Dora Vs UOI & 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 again any sanctioned post. The applicant was engaged on casual basis from 09.10.2001 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 compliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (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 Jaggo (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 CAT but no copy of such decision has been annexed in the counter nor has been produced in course of hearing. Be that as it may, we find that the Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications, questioned the very same point of maintainability of Original Application before CAT filed unde