Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5572

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Sodan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
200/00590/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.N. Banerjee
For the Respondents: N.K. Mishra

Casual labourers continuously employed since 1990, having rendered more than 240 days service per year, are entitled to regularization under DoP&T OM dated 16.10.2014, and earlier rejections do not bar such claims.

Headnote:(A) DoP&T OM No. 49014/3/2014-Estt

(C) dated 16.10.2014 - Regularization of Casual Labourers with Temporary Status - The OM provides for consideration of regularization of casual labourers who were on rolls as on 10.09.1993 and had temporary status. Temporary status is conferred on workers who rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. 240 days in a year or 206 days in offices working five days a week. (Paras 6, 8)

(B) Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC - The judgment aimed to distinguish between illegal and irregular appointments, holding that employees in irregular appointments who served continuously for more than ten years should be considered for regularization. Its principles are often misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. (Paras 12, 16)

(C) Ravi Verma vs. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3860 - Part 13 - Discriminatory treatment meted out to similarly situated employees; services ought to have been regularized in 2006. (Para 10)

(D) Jaggo vs. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 - The judgment clarified that the intent of Uma Devi was not to deny regularization to employees who were eligible, but to check backdoor entries. Government departments often misuse the judgment to reject claims of employees whose appointments are not illegal but merely lack procedural formalities. (Paras 12, 16) (E) Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 - Workers who rendered continuous service over several years cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. Employment practices that misuse temporary contracts for perennial work violate labour law principles. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, Sodan Singh, joined CPWD as Beldar on Hand Receipt basis in 1990 and is working as plumber. Some workers identically placed were regularized pursuant to CAT Jabalpur order in OA 786/1996 (Ishwardas and others vs. U.O.I. and Ors.), upheld by MP High Court. The applicant along with others filed OA 227/2003 which was allowed on 08.12.2004 directing regularization. The respondents challenged this before MP High Court in WP 4835/2005, which modified the order directing consideration of regularization in light of OM dated 16.10.2014. The respondents rejected the applicant's claim via order dated 11.02.2016, leading to the present OA.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal allowed the OA, directing the respondents to consider the applicant's case for regularization against a Group D post within 90 days, since he rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a year since 1990.

Issues: Whether the applicant, a casual labourer continuously employed since 1990, is entitled to regularization of services under the DoP&T OM dated 16.10.2014 and in light of judicial precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the applicant had rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a year since 1990, thereby being eligible for temporary status and subsequent regularization. The judgments of the Apex Court in Jaggo, Ravi Verma and Shripal were relied upon to hold that long-serving temporary employees cannot be denied regularization on technical grounds. The second round of litigation did not bar the claim, as the earlier rejection was not considered justifiable.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. reliefs sought by applicant for regularization (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' defence against regularization claim (Para 3)
3. tribunal's consideration and relevant order in earlier oa (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. final direction to consider regularization within 90 days (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

ORDER

BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-

1.The applicant in this case of regularization is praying for the following relief(s):-

“8(8.1) To command the respondents to produce all relevant NAMDEO . : - . records/instructions pertaining to the case.

8.2 To kindly command respondents to consider case of applicant for regularization taking to consideration that applicant had already attend temporary status long back as such applicant should have been considered for regularization in the light of O.M. dated 16/10/2014. Further case of applicant is identical to that of Ramesh Kumar and also Ishwardas & others.

8.3 All consequential benefits including arrears of pay and seniority may kindly be ordered to be granted.

8.4 Any other relief which Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly consider reasonable.

8.5 Cost of the petition be kindly allowed.”

2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant joined CPWD as Beldar on Hand Receipt basis in the year 1990 and is presently working as plumber in the buildings of office of Central Excise and Income Tax office, Ujjain. Some of the workers in the same zone and who are identically placed have been regularized and are being paid regular pay scale as a result of the decision of Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur passed in O.A. 786/1996 dated 01.01.1997, (Ishwardas and others vs. U.O.1.& Ors.). The order was also upheld by Hon'ble M.P. High Court. Most of the labours who were regularized were even junior to applicant. The applicant along with 4 others filed Original application before this Tribunal which was registered as OA 227/2003. Based on the decision passed in OA 786/1996 Ishwardas (Supra), a common order was passed by This Tribunal on 8.12.2004 holding that “In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the respondents should RAJUIteat the applicants as causal labourers for the entire period of their NAMDEO gagement and regularize their services in accordance with the law " within a period of six months. The application is accordingly allowed. The parties shall bear own costs." The respondents challenged the order before Hon'ble M.P. High Court which was registered as W.P. 4835/2005. Honble High Court had been pleased to dispose off the Writ Petition stating that "In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and as agreed by them, the order dated 8.12.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is modified and it is hereby directed that the petitioners shall consider the cases of the respondents for regularization in the light of office memorandum dated 16/10/2014 issued by the Government of India within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” The contention of the applicant is that the respondents have overlooked the case of the applicant who is continuously working since 1990 till date but his case has not been taken into consideration for regularization of service. Hence this O.A.

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been stated that the applicant had never joined as Beldar in the department but was engaged by Assistant Engineer as a contractor for providing services of a Beldar through a work order under his own financial powers. He was employed to attend the repairs minor work at Income Tax & Central RAJUEXcise Department Ujjain. The case of the applicant for regularization NAMDEO s been duly considered. The applicant had earlier filed application . seeking the same relief in O.A. No.1050/2000 and CCP No.24/2002 on the same grounds. In pursuance of the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal in previous round of litigation, the case of the applicant has been considered and by a reasoned order, his application for regularizat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5572

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAkhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative MemberSodan Singh – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent200/00590/2018

Casual labourers continuously employed since 1990, having rendered more than 240 days service per year, are entitled to regularization under DoP&T OM dated 16.10.2014, and earlier rejections do not bar such claims.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Sodan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
200/00590/2018