Casual employees with over two decades continuous service on perennial work entitled to regularization on parity with similarly situated peers, Tribunal has jurisdiction, rejecting lack of civil post or selection process as bars.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - Casual/daily wage employees - Regularization - Applicant serving continuously on casual basis since 2000 for over two decades - Similarly situated casual workers regularized in other commissionerates vide orders dated 04.03.2011 and 17.02.2025 retrospectively w.e.f. 22.01.2010 - Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain OA by casual employees seeking regularization as held by Apex Court, overruling objection based on lack of civil post status - Prolonged continuous service on perennial work entitles regularization despite initial engagement not against sanctioned post or through selection process - Discrimination in non-regularization of similarly placed employees violates equality - Applicant directed to be regularized with effect from date of regularization of others, with all consequential service and financial benefits within 90 days. (Paras 4, 5, 9)

(B) Service Jurisprudence - Regularization principles - Long-term ad hoc/temporary engagements for perennial duties cannot be perpetuated; outsourcing or temporary labels cannot shield exploitation - Umadevi distinguished for irregular engagements with continuous service - Precedents binding under Article 141; similarly situated employees entitled to identical treatment to avoid Article 14 violation. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
Applicant engaged as casual worker since 05.09.2000, serving uninterruptedly for over 20 years across offices, now overaged for other employment. Respondents denied regularization claiming no civil post, no selection process, engagement temporary, and failure to meet 10-year threshold as on 10.04.2006 unlike regularized peers.

Findings of Court:
OA allowed; applicant entitled to regularization from date others were regularized, with benefits as per law laid down in precedents.

Issues: (1) Maintainability of OA by casual employee before Tribunal; (2) Entitlement to regularization absent initial selection/sanctioned post after decades of service; (3) Discrimination vis-à-vis regularized casual workers.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal holds jurisdiction over casual employees' claims; continuous long service on perennial work mandates regularization to uphold equality, rejecting temporary label as shield for exploitation; parity with similarly situated regularized employees enforceable.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's long casual service and comparators regularized (Para 1 , 2 , 9)
2. cat jurisdiction over casual employees' regularization upheld (Para 3 , 4)
3. regularization despite irregular engagement per apex court rulings (Para 5 , 6)
4. non-discrimination mandates similar treatment for comparators (Para 7 , 8)
5. oa allowed with regularization directions (Para 11)

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is not in dispute that the applicant has been continuing to serve the department on casual basis uninterruptedly over more than two decades i.e. since 05.09.2000 till date and meanwhile became overaged to seek any employment in Government for sustenance of livelihood. 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 05.09.2000 and was receiving wages under head wages on continuous basis frm the office of the PCIT, Sambalpur upto 30.11.2021 and has been receiving wages from the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Verification Unit)-1(2), Cuttack from 01.12.2021 till date. It is stated that since, 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 oSfe ctrheet adryec,i sSitoant e oof f tKhae rnHaotna’kblae VAsp Uexm Cao Duretv ii,n (2t0h0e6 ) c4a SsCeC o1f 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 stateJda gthgaot the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (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 docume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3923

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALPramod Kumar Das, Member (A)1026/2025OA

Casual employees with over two decades continuous service on perennial work entitled to regularization on parity with similarly situated peers, Tribunal has jurisdiction, rejecting lack of civil post or selection process as bars.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1026/2025
OA