SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4499

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, Administrative Member
Subhas – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.266 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashish Srivastava, Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi
For the Respondents: Shri Anil Kumar

No regularization for casual labour absent valid proof of engagement by competent authority under recruitment ban; department records prevail over unsubstantiated claims and unverified documents.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Casual labour - Regularization and temporary status - Applicant claimed engagement as part time casual labour since 1996, seeking quashing of rejection order dated 21.11.2013 and oral termination dated 20.09.2013 - Department banned fresh casual labour recruitment post 30.03.1985 - No appointment letter, payment records or valid proof of engagement produced - Verification committee found no records of engagement or payment - Circulars for temporary status and regularization inapplicable without proof of valid initial engagement by competent authority - Principles in cited judgments distinguishing illegal/irregular appointments not applicable absent recognition of engagement - Claim for parity rejected as juniors had recognized engagements later terminated - Oral termination denied by department - No direction for regularization possible without authorised engagement proof. (Paras 7, 9, 12, 13)

(B) Natural justice - Termination - Oral termination without notice alleged - Department denied any formal termination order - Impugned rejection order passed per Tribunal direction after show cause notice, document submission and committee verification - Applicant failed to attend hearings or produce originals - Principles of natural justice not violated where opportunity provided but claim unsubstantiated. (Paras 4, 12)

(C) Evidence - Muster rolls and certificates - Photocopies and unapproved endorsements by non-competent officer insufficient - No original records, payment vouchers or acquaintance rolls found - Committee report confirmed no engagement - Fabricated documents alleged with disciplinary action initiated. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

Facts of the case:
Applicant claimed continuous service as part time casual labour from 1996 till 19.09.2013, working over 8 hours daily at exchange, entitled to temporary status per 1989 scheme after 240 days/year and regularization after 3 years. Representations ignored; services orally terminated on 20.09.2013 post filing O.A.; rejection order dated 21.11.2013 after committee found no engagement records or payments.

Findings of Court:
No acceptable proof of engagement by competent authority; ban on casual labour post-1985; circulars inapplicable; cited judgments factually distinguishable; no parity with recognized cases; O.A. dismissed.

Issues: Whether applicant entitled to regularization/temporary status absent engagement proof; validity of oral termination; applicability of regularization schemes and parity despite recruitment ban and lack of records.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization cannot be directed without valid proof of engagement by competent authority, especially under recruitment ban; department records and committee verification prevail over unsubstantiated claims and photocopies; parity unavailable without prior recognition of engagement.

Result: O.A. dismissed. All associated Miscellaneous Applications disposed of. No costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks quashing of termination and regularization. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's claims of long service and ignored regularization schemes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. respondents deny engagement due to recruitment ban and lack of records. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. applicant cites judgments favoring long-term casual workers' regularization. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court finds no proof of valid engagement or termination. (Para 12 , 13)
6. original application dismissed for lack of evidence. (Para 14)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

1.Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the respondent no.6 and oral termination order dated 20.09.2013 passed by respondent No.5 which is stated to have been passed on the direction of the higher authority, with all consequential benefits.

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit & proper in the interest of justice.

(iii) To award the cost of Original Application in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant has claimed that he was initially engaged / appointed as part time casual labour in the office of S.D.E. Phones Telephone Exchange, Angarh, District -Mirzapur in the year April 1996 which was under control and supervision by the T.D.M.. Mirzapur. Since then he discharged the duties allotted to him till 19-9-2013. The applicant has further claimed that he worked as part time casual labour since April 1996 for 4 hours per day but discharged duty of more than 8 hours per day without any break at the Hurua Exchange, District - Mirzapur. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed a judgment on 29.11.1989 in the Case of Jagriti Mazdoor Union Versus Manager Telecom Nigam Limited and others and direction was given that as such casual labours who have completed 240 days in a calendar year are entitled to get Temporary Status (T.S.) and thereafter who have completed 3 years continuous services, they would be treated at par with Group 'D' employee. Thereafter, respondent No. -2 formulated a scheme on 29.11.1989 for granting Temporary Status and regularization of casual labours. The applicant herein is aggrieved that his claim for the aforesaid benefit of temporary status and further benefits has not been considered by the respondents even though he fulfilled all the requisite conditions. Eventually Respondent No. 5 i,e. SDE, Phones Telephone Exchange, Angarh, Mirzapur has also terminated the service of the applicant orally on 20.09.2013 with consent of the higher authorities.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the department have issued a letter No. 269-13/99 -STN-II dated 16.09.1999 for converting part time casual labours to full time casual labours as well as for regularization of those who were working four hours or more hours per day but the applicant’s claim was not considered. The department also issued a letter No. 269-13/99 S.T.N.-II dated 25.08.2000 which provides that the part time causal labours who were working less than 4 hours per day and have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months may be converted from part time casual labours to full time casual labours and thereafter several part time casual labours were converted into full time casual labours but even then the claim of the applicant was not considered for conversion from part time casual labours to full time casual labours and regularization. The Assistant Director General S.T.N. also issued instruction on 29.09.2000 to all CGM's for regularization of casual labours i.e. part time & full time with term & condition for consideration of regularization of the aforesaid casual labours including the applicant and applicant fulfilled the condition No.-3 and 4 as mentioned in the aforesaid letter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top