Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3830
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Judicial Member, Anjani Nandan Sharan, Administrative Member
Mukesh Kumar Patel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.1625/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sunil
For the Respondents: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
Abrupt discontinuance of long-serving daily wage worker without written order or due process is arbitrary and unsustainable; department must consider regularization where service acknowledged and process initiated, ensuring non-discrimination.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Daily wage/casual worker engaged since 1995 against sanctioned vacancy, granted temporary status, considered for regularization pursuant to Supreme Court directives - Discontinued abruptly w.e.f. 27.09.2011 by stopping wages and oral restraint without written order, reasons or hearing - Such action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 - Even casual workers entitled to fair, non-arbitrary treatment and due process - Departmental communications acknowledging long service (over 10 years) and forwarding name for regularization consideration bind authorities to decide claim on merits - Discrimination if similarly situated granted relief - Directions issued for consideration of regularization, arrears to legal heirs. (Paras 9, 14, 15, 20-25)
(B) Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - Equality - Long-serving daily wagers on perennial work cannot be indefinitely retained in temporary status; State as model employer must regularize or provide appropriate relief where records show sanctioned posts and consideration initiated - Abrupt termination without procedure unsustainable. (Paras 18, 23)
Facts of the case:
Legal heirs of deceased daily wage Staff Car Driver-cum-Peon challenged discontinuance from service w.e.f. 27.09.2011 without written order despite continuous engagement since 25.01.1995, temporary status, and pending regularization consideration per departmental exercises in 2009-2010. Respondents denied regular appointment, records of temporary status or sanctioned post, claiming mere daily wage engagement conferred no rights.
Findings of Court:
Action of abrupt discontinuance set aside; respondents directed to consider deceased's case for regularization per 01.10.2009 and 04.01.2010 communications and Supreme Court principles within 3 months, ensuring no discrimination vs. similarly situated; arrears and dues payable to legal heirs if entitled.
Issues: Whether discontinuance of long-serving casual worker without written order or due process sustainable; entitlement to regularization consideration where department acknowledged service and initiated process; parity with others regularized from same list.
Ratio Decidendi: Even irregular appointees with 10+ years service in sanctioned posts (not under court orders) merit regularization consideration per Supreme Court; oral/ arbitrary termination of acknowledged long-term workers violates fairness under Articles 14/16 - reasoned decision mandatory.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of employment and termination dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicants claim continuous service and regularization entitlement. (Para 6) |
| 3. respondents deny regularization rights for daily wager. (Para 7) |
| 4. acknowledgment of long service and improper termination. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. uma devi permits consideration for long-term irregular appointees. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. precedents mandate fair treatment for perennial long-service workers. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. quash arbitrary termination; direct regularization consideration. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the legal heirs of the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in discontinuing him from service w.e.f. 27.09.2011 by stopping payment of his wages and orally directing him not to work without issuing any written order, without assigning any reason and without following due process of law, despite his continuous engagement since 25.01.1995 as Staff Car Driver-cum-Peon against a sanctioned vacancy and grant of temporary status. The legal heirs of the applicant asserts that his case for regularization was under consideration pursuant to departmental correspondence and in the light of the law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, yet instead of taking a decision thereon, the respondents terminated his engagement while retaining similarly situated and even junior casual workers. They, therefore, seek quashing of the impugned action, a direction for consequential benefits including unpaid wages, and consideration of the deceased employee’s claim for regularization in accordance with law.
3. By filing the Counter Affidavit dated 24.03.2015, the respondents have denied the claim of the deceased employee by stating that the original applicant was engaged purely as a daily wager and not through any regular recruitment process or valid selection mechanism. According to them, he was neither a duly appointed candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor selected pursuant to any sanctioned recruitment procedure. It is specifically denied that he was ever granted temporary status, appointed against a sanctioned or substantive vacancy, or conferred with the status of casual labour in accordance with departmental rules. The respondents contend that no official records exist to substantiate his claim of regular engagement or continuity in a sanctioned post. It is further pleaded that mere continuation on daily wage basis does not confer any legal right to claim regularization or protection in service. In such circumstances, it is stated that the original applicant does not acquire any vested or enforceable right to seek continuation in service, reinstatement after discontinuance, or regularization and therefore the Original Application, being based on unfounded assertions and devoid of legal entitlement, is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, the applicant has specifically denied the averments made in the Counter Affidavit and has reiterated and reaffirmed the statements and contentions set forth in the Original Application.
5. During the pendency of the present Original Application, the original applicant, namely Mukesh Kumar Patel, expired on 09.03.2022. Consequently, in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 02.01.2026, his legal heirs were brought on record and have been permitted to prosecute the present Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants, while assailing the action of the respondents, advanced the following submissions:-
6.1 The original applicant (Mukesh Kumar) was initially engaged on 25.01.1995 as Staff Car Driver-cum-Peon through Employment Exchange and has been continuously discharging
