Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3794
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative Member
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA NO.1064/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Annu Singh
Casual workers who have served continuously for over ten years and perform duties identical to regular posts are entitled to parity in treatment and regularization where similarly situated employees in the same organization have already been granted such relief by judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to Equality - Regularization of casual workers - The principle of parity requires that similarly situated employees should be treated equally by the state, provided the appointment was not illegal but irregular and they meet the required length of service.
(B) Service Law - Regularization - Casual labourers - Where employees have performed duties akin to regular posts for over a decade, refusing regularization while granting it to similar cohorts in other matters constitutes discriminatory treatment under Article 14.
(C) Precedent - Applicability - Where a judicial forum has directed regularization for similarly situated employees performing identical nature of work in the same department, the respondents cannot arbitrarily deny similar benefits to other eligible workers.
Facts of the case:
The applicants, all engaged as casual laborers/Monument Attendants in the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) since various dates between 1993 and 2009, sought regularization of their services. They contended they had performed regular and permanent duties for over a decade and sought parity with other similarly situated casual employees whose services were regularized pursuant to judicial directions in previous litigation. The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the ASI is not an industry, the nature of employment was casual/temporary, and there was no right to regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the applicants were performing duties identical to those whose regularization had already been ordered by the court in similar cases. The respondents failed to establish any substantial distinction between the applicants and the beneficiaries of the previous orders regarding the nature of work or qualifications.
Issues: Whether the casual employees of the Archaeological Survey of India are entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity with other similarly situated employees who have already been regularized.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the principle of parity and the ratio of previous decisions involving similarly situated employees within the same organization, the Court held that the applicants, having completed over 10 years of continuous service, were entitled to the same treatment as those granted regularization status, and that denial of such parity constitutes an artificial distinction.
Result: Application allowed; respondents directed to consider the applicants for regularization/appropriate status within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants seek regularization parity based on past judicial rulings for similar workers. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents argue against regularization citing service rules and legal precedents (uma devi). (Para 3) |
| 3. court evaluates the nature of work and finds no justifiable distinction for denial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. judicial directive for regularization of eligible casual labor. (Para 10) |
(By advocate: Ms. Annu Singh)
ORDER (ORAL)
HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER (J):-
In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following reliefs along with interim relief:
“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicants for their regularization by way of extending the benefits of judgment dt. 12.11.2018 in SWP No.290/2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Srinagar upheld in LPASW No.40/2019 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakah at Srinagar with all the consequential benefits in same manner as done vide order dated 4.7.2023 in case of similar situated persons.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”
2. It is the case of the applicants that all the applicants are presently working as Monument Attendants/MTS on casual basis in the Archaeological Survey of India since 1993-2003 (Applicant No.1 to 11) and since 2009 (Applicant No. 12 & 13) and presently working under respondent No.3 and their initial date of appointment in the Archaeological Survey of India are as under: -
| S.No. | Name | Date of appointment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Satish Kumar | 1.6.1994 |
| 2. | Firoj SK | 15.2.1993 |
| 3. | Tamal Kumar | 1.6.1994 |
| 4. | Bachan Singh | 1.6.1994 |
| 5. | Noorman | 1.11.1994 |
| 6. | Daulat Singh | 1.11.1994 |
| 7. | Dinesh Kumar | 27.6.1995 |
| 8. | Anant Pandey | 1.10.1995 |
| 9. | Satbir | 20.9.1995 |
| 10. | Dinesh Kumar | 1.5.1998 |
| 11. | Raju | 1.1.2003 |
| 12. | Neeraj Kumar | 20.1.2009 |
| 13. | Tejpal Singh | 14.6.2009 |
2.1 The applicants were appointed after inviting the application from open market and after due process of selection. The nature of the work of the applicants is regular and permanent, but the respondents, instead of appointing regular employee, appointed the persons/applicants on casual basis.
2.2 It is undisputed fact that the nature of work of the applicant is regular and permanent nature and that is why the respondent No.2 vide under dated 21 1.2008 decided to grant the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowances for the work of 8 hours a day.
2.3 All the applicants getting their monthly salary on minimum of regular pay scale plus DA every month. The Archaeological Survey of India Worker's Union, vide representation dated 7.6.2017 followed by another representation dated 24.8.2018 requested the competent authorities for the regularization of the services of the casual workers who are working in Archaeological Survey of India, including the applicants.
2.4 Some similarly situated persons, namely Ghulam Nabi Ahanger and others filed their SWP No.290/2018 before the Hon'ble J&K High Court for their regularization and the case has been decided vide judgment dated 12.11.2018 with the directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for their regularization. Against the judgment dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench, the respondents filed LPA SW No. 40/2019 before the Division Bench of Hon'ble J&K High Court and same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.5.2022. It is submitted that as per the knowledge of the applicants, the judgment of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.5 The respondents now vide order dated 4.7.2023 regularized the services of only those who approached the Hon'ble Court and got judgment in their favour.
2.6 Some more similarly situated persons working in Dehradun Region filed an OA No. 387/2019 (Chatur Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors.) before t
