Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4125

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member, Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Kalipada Singha Roy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/1776/2018|O.A.350/181/2012|O.A.350/1483/2018|O.A.350/1357/2016|WPCT No. 240 of 2025|O.A.No.137/2008|O.A.No.1092/2018|O.A.No.137/2004|O.A.No.137 of 2004

Advocates:
For the Applicant: Mr. P.C. Das, Ms. T. Maity
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Das

Long continuous service as casual worker with temporary status on perennial duties entitles regularization despite record gaps and scheme criteria, per recent Supreme Court rulings distinguishing irregular from illegal appointments and deprecating temporary label misuse.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Regularization of casual workers - Applicant appointed as casual labour in 1985, granted temporary status w.e.f. 02.07.2010, completed multi-skill training, but denied regularization due to lack of records post 1986 and non-fulfillment of 1995 scheme criteria - Impugned order rejecting claim quashed - Long continuous service on perennial duties entitles irregular appointees to regularization despite Uma Devi, as clarified in recent Supreme Court judgments distinguishing illegal from irregular appointments and deprecating misuse of temporary labels for essential roles - Directed regularization from 02.07.2009 with consequential benefits within three months. (Paras 14-18)

(B) Service Law - Casual workers absorption - DoPT OMs dated 10.09.1993, 16.10.2014, 29.01.2015, 26.02.2016 - Entitlement arises from continuous service, temporary status, fixed pay scale and training completion against vacancies, not limited to one-time schemes or failed selection processes - Claim not tied to specific post selection failure. (Paras 4-7, 9-13)

Facts of the case:
Casual worker engaged since 1985, intermittently till 2009 identification under 1995 scheme, granted temporary status w.e.f. 02.07.2010, fixed pay scale, completed training amid vacancies, but regularization rejected vide order dated 15.11.2018 for lacking qualifications/continuous service records as on 10.09.1993 and scheme criteria; prior Tribunal directions for consideration unheeded; matter remanded by High Court for fresh hearing.

Findings of Court:
Respondents failed to deny long service claim; work perennial in nature; regularization directed from date of identification as casual worker i.e. 02.07.2009, deeming duties essential/recurring, with all consequential benefits within three months.

Issues: Whether long-serving casual worker with temporary status, fixed pay and training on perennial duties entitled to regularization despite gaps in records, non-presence on 1993 rolls and scheme eligibility; scope of recent Supreme Court rulings overriding strict Uma Devi application.

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court rulings hold irregular long-term appointees on perennial duties eligible for regularization; temporary labels misused for essential roles deprive security/benefits; cannot deny relief using Uma Devi as shield absent legitimate recruitment; equity demands regularization after decades of service.

Result: O.A. allowed; impugned order set aside; regularization directed.

Table of Content
1. high court remands case for fresh hearing after quashing prior tribunal order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's long service as casual labour since 1985, granted temporary status. (Para 3 , 9 , 10)
3. parties dispute eligibility under csir scheme 1995 and dopt oms. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13)
4. applicant's continuous service on perennial duties despite qualification gaps. (Para 8 , 11)
5. supreme court rulings limit uma devi; mandate regularization for irregular long-term employees. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. direct regularization from 2009 with consequential benefits. (Para 18 , 19)

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. This O.A was disposed of on 25.04.2025 by this Tribunal allowing the prayer of the applicant. The respondents filed an appeal against our order dated 25.04.2025 in the Hon’ble High Court by filing WPCT No. 240 of 2025 which quashed and set aside our order remanding the matter back to the Tribunal on the ground that adequate time and opportunity was not granted to the respondents to engage a new counsel after their earlier counsel returned the brief. Hon’ble High Court disposed of the WPCT by passing following observations and directions:

“In this backdrop, we are unable to countenance the order dated 31.01.2025 and consequential impugned order dated 25.04.2025 in all the matters. These orders are set aside. Resultantly, the applications, being nos. O.A.350/181/2012, O.A.350/1776/2018, O.A.350/1483/2018 and O.A.350/1357/2016, are restored to their original file and number. The Tribunal is requested to re-hear the parties and decide the matters afresh in accordance with law.

8. It shall be the duty of CSIR to engage a lawyer for which no further notice will be required to be issued by the Tribunal. As per stand of counsel for CSIR, the Department will not ask for any adjournment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is requested to hear and decide the matter within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

9. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, these writ petitions are disposed of. Connected applications, if there be any, are also disposed of.”

Accordingly, the matter was heard again.

2. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):

“a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned speaking order being No.Admn.20(18)/13/kps/18 dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Director, CSIR-IICB whereby and whereunder the claim of the applicant for regularization of his service to the post of Peon has been rejected by not complying with the CSIR- Casual Workers Absorption Scheme 1995 and also not complying with the various directions and office memorandum issued by the DOP&T from time to time for regularization of the casual worker and the temporary status employee throughout the country and also violates the decision of the Constitution bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi in Para 53 of the said decision whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held if the initial appointment is not illegal but irregular if the incumbent is continuing and completed 10 years of service they are entitled for regularization either in the post of Group ‘D’ and/or Group ‘C’ as the case may be. Since your applicant has appointed through Employment Exchange in this office in the year 1985 and is continuing till today but without any regularization except granted temporary status. On that ground itself the entire speaking order cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law;

b) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to regularize the service of the present applicant to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff in terms of Para (10.1.18) regarding Employment of staff on daily wage/contract basis/work-charged basis in CSIR and its Laboratories/Institutes as per the Compendium on CSIR Rules, Regulations and Procedures published by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4125

Long continuous service as casual worker with temporary status on perennial duties entitles regularization despite record gaps and scheme criteria, per recent Supreme Court rulings distinguishing irregular from illegal appointments and deprecating temporary label misuse.

Cases Referred (2)