Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Maintainability of Section 19 Applications - The primary criterion for the maintainability of an application under Section 19 of the CAT Act 1985 is whether the grievance pertains to the legality or correctness of a service-related order, such as regularization or benefits, and whether the issue involves disputed questions of fact or law. Many cases emphasize that such applications are maintainable if the applicant's claim involves illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory actions by the respondents, especially when similarly situated persons have been granted benefits or regularization ["Him Saran vs Income Tax Department - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Bansi Lal vs Libraries And Research - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Discrimination and Similar Situations - Several cases highlight that applications are maintainable when the applicant can demonstrate that similarly situated employees have been granted regularization or benefits, and the denial constitutes discrimination or arbitrary treatment. Courts have repeatedly underscored that treating equals unequally without just cause violates principles of natural justice and equality ["Smt. Geeta Srivastava vs Indian Council of Medical Research - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Mehar Singh, Devinder Kumar, Surjeet Kumar, Buibui Hussain Mazharhuiva, Swarn Singh, Santokh Singh, Som Lal, Sham Singh vs Union of India through Defence Secretary and others - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Makhan Singh vs Union of India through Defence Secretary - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Role of Regularization Policies and Orders - When respondents have granted regularization or benefits to some similarly situated employees, applications seeking similar relief are often found maintainable, provided the applicant can establish their identity as similarly situated and that the denial is arbitrary or discriminatory. Conversely, if the applicant's case is distinguishable or involves disputed facts, the application may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability ["Ramesh Kumar vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Joginder Singh vs Union of India through Defence Secretary - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Susheel Kumar vs Jammu & Kashmir Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Limitations and Disputed Facts - The courts have also emphasized that applications under Section 19 are not maintainable if the dispute involves factual questions that require detailed investigation, or if the applicant has not exhausted statutory remedies or if the claim is barred by limitation ["Chander Bhan vs DSIIDC Through its Managing Director - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["K. Jeyachandran vs Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Analysis and ConclusionAn application under Section 19 of the CAT Act 1985 is generally maintainable against the non-regularization of a similarly situated person when the applicant can establish that others in comparable circumstances have been granted regularization or benefits, and that the denial is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violates principles of natural justice. Many judgments affirm that if the applicant's case is identical to those already regularized, the application is likely to succeed, provided factual disputes are minimal and procedural requirements are met. However, if the matter involves disputed facts, procedural lapses, or distinguishable circumstances, the Tribunal may dismiss the application. Therefore, the maintainability hinges on demonstrating that the denial of regularization is arbitrary and that the applicant is similarly situated to those who have been regularized ["THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF HEADQUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND KOCHI vs K.M.KALA, AGED 48 YEARS COMMAND STADIUM LABOURER (SAFAIWALA), NAVAL AIRCRAFT YARD, KOCHI-682004 - Kerala"], ["Him Saran vs Income Tax Department - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Bansi Lal vs Libraries And Research - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
In the realm of government service disputes, regularization of temporary or contractual employees is a hotly contested issue. Many employees find themselves in a quandary: while some colleagues in similar positions secure regularization, others are left out. This raises a critical question: Will an application under Section 19 of the CAT Act 1985 be maintainable against non-regularization of similarly situated persons being granted regularization?
This blog post delves into the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, drawing from key legal interpretations and related case laws. We'll examine why such claims typically fall outside the Tribunal's scope, supported by judicial precedents. Note: This is general information based on available legal documents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was enacted to provide speedy justice for service-related matters of central government employees. Section 19 outlines the procedure for filing applications before the Tribunal, but its scope is narrowly defined. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to persons aggrieved by specific ordersDuryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524.
As per judicial interpretations, person aggrieved refers to individuals directly affected by specific administrative or service-related orders, not strangers or third parties pushing general principles or public interest claims Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524. Claims seeking regularization for similarly situated employees without a personal adverse order do not qualify. The Tribunal cannot entertain public interest litigations or claims made by strangers or on behalf of a class without individual grievancesDuryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524.
Section 14 of the Act mirrors pre-Act court jurisdiction but confines it to enumerated matters. Courts have reinforced that Tribunals aren't forums for investigating qualifications or technicalities once authorities are satisfied with an individual Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524. Broader equality claims don't trigger jurisdiction.
In practice, employees challenging non-regularization often cite discrimination under Article 14 (equality). However, CAT demands a specific order affecting you personally. Without it, the application is premature or non-maintainable.
Several precedents illustrate these limits, particularly around regularization claims under Section 19:
In a case involving challenges to a non-regularization order dated 11.10.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the OA under Section 19 due to res judicata (prior similar relief denied) and delay/laches. Applicants, absorbed as Telegraph Assistants but not regularized from initial recruitment, couldn't rely on prior orders for peers D Venkateswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3746. The court noted: The applicants' claims for regularization were barred by res judicata and delay.
Another OA sought to count 50% pre-regularization service for pension. The Tribunal rejected it, holding applicants had received all due benefits post-regularization, deeming a Supreme Court ruling inapplicable Alok Kumar Srivastava vs Divisional Railway Manager N C Rly - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1635. This underscores no automatic entitlements based on similarity alone.
Contrastingly, some High Court writs (outside CAT) have directed consideration for similarly situated persons:
A petitioner, a PTA-basis Lecturer since 2005, succeeded in a writ claiming discrimination. The court ordered: In case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, as the others, he shall be granted same consequential benefitsBhagwan Singh Negi vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 630. This highlights writ remedies for equality but not CAT's individual-order focus.
In termination disputes, the Supreme Court quashed a High Court regularization order for a contractual driver, stating: A contractual employee has no right to claim regularisationChief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane VS Santosh Tukaram Tiware - 2022 8 Supreme 659. Even long service doesn't guarantee benefits if not procedurally appointed.
A Tripartite Settlement case under Industrial Disputes Act led to directions for regularization decisions, binding authorities to consider sealed results Deepak Kumar Mohanty VS TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited (tpcodl) - 2021 Supreme(Ori) 218.
Daily wage PGT/TGT appointments were denied one-time relaxation; they got age concessions for competition instead Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel VS Union of India - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1040. CAT held: initial appointments... were appointments on daily wage basis, entitling them to no guarantee of regularization.
These cases show CAT prioritizes procedural bars and individual merits over parity pleas without personal orders.
Rarely, if a specific order denies your regularization while explicitly granting it to identical peers, you might argue discrimination—but evidence of your aggrieved status is crucial. Tribunals won't probe systemic issues.
Limitations:- Purely collective claims without specific orders are barred Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524.- Delay often dooms applications D Venkateswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3746.
For broader issues:- File writs in High Courts/Supreme Court under Articles 226/32.- Exhaust representations before approaching CAT.
To strengthen your case:- Demonstrate Direct Impact: Secure a specific denial order affecting you Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524.- Avoid Sole Reliance on Peers: Claims based only on others' regularization fail Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524.- Address Delay: Act promptly; laches can bar relief D Venkateswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3746.- Explore Alternatives: Consider writs for equality if CAT jurisdiction lacks Bhagwan Singh Negi vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 630.- Gather Evidence: Document qualifications, service length, and peer comparisons meticulously.
Generally, applications under Section 19 of the CAT Act 1985 are not maintainable for non-regularization solely because similarly situated persons received it. The Tribunal's role is confined to individual grievances from specific orders, excluding PILs or class claims Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524. While writ courts may entertain parity arguments, CAT demands precision.
Regularization battles hinge on procedure, not just equity. Stay informed, document diligently, and seek professional guidance early. For policy changes, union advocacy or legislative routes may be apt.
References: Analysis draws from Duryodhan Sahu VS Jitendra Kumar Mishra - 1998 6 Supreme 524, D Venkateswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3746, Alok Kumar Srivastava vs Divisional Railway Manager N C Rly - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1635, Bhagwan Singh Negi vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 630, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane VS Santosh Tukaram Tiware - 2022 8 Supreme 659, Deepak Kumar Mohanty VS TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited (tpcodl) - 2021 Supreme(Ori) 218, Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel VS Union of India - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1040. Always verify latest judgments.
#CATAct #ServiceRegularization #LaborLawIndia
Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act. ... to similarly situated persons. ... The Division Bench of this Court found that the respondent should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of The Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’ for short) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court ... The respondent herein was working as Safaiwala in the Comma....
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide acts, conduct, commission and omission on the part of the respondents whereby the applicant has been discriminated for ... The CAT order dated 27th September 2012 reinstated the Applicant to his previous placement but clarified that he was not entitled to wages for the period of non-service; notional pay was to....
(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Regularization of service - Applicant claimed regularization as Clerk-cum-Typist ... ORDER This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):- Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a direction to the respondents' autho....
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:- (i) That the impugned order dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure A-15) be quashed and set aside being illegal and arbitrary. ... The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularization of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been grante....
Section 19 of the a href=".. ... (Civil Appeal Nos. 7423–7429 of 2018), wherein denial of regularization in similar circumstances was held arbitrary. g) It is submitted that some similarly situated persons had approached CAT Chandigarh Bench, whose claims were initially dismissed by order dated 29.09.2016. ... He has suppressed the fact that similarly situated persons had already approached the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in SWP No. 2615/2018, where st....
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) “Allow the instant application of the applicant along with costs. b) Direct the ... Lastly, denial of regularization to the applicant, while similarly situated persons were regularized, amounts to hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ... It is f....
Section 19 of the a href=".. ... 19. The Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ... In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for regularization is not maintainable. ... petitioner as casual labour on the analogy of those who have already been regularised by the respondents, as petitioner being similarly situated persons in the same department. ... Despite their long and dedicated service, their claims for....
Section 19 of the a href="./.. ... Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) “Direction to the respondents to regularise services of 4 the petitioners with all consequential benefits till date, on the analogy of those who have already been regularised by the respondents, ... The Apex Court emphasized that such directions, if granted, would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many aspiring candidates and would amount to back-door entry, which is impermissible. #HL....
(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Regularization of services - Applicants challenged the order dated 11.10.2018 ... ORDER (Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicants filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the impugned order dt. 11.10.2018 and for a direction ... Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the law is settled with regard to regularization#HL....
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Regularization of service - Applicants sought to add 50% of their service ... The instant Original Application No.1421 of 2017 under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:- a) For a direction upon the respondents to give effect the regularization from the date on completion of 3 years ... The Original Application#HL_EN....
In case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, as the others, he shall be granted same consequential benefits in lieu of his regularization as granted to other similarly situated persons. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 2009. This exercise be carried out within four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.
Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It was found that employees similarly situated working in the same establishment were granted regularization.
For the Writ Petition succeeds, the petitioners will also be entitled to any other benefit given to similarly situated persons in view of their regularization. So far as the arrear salary involving Clerk-B (trainee) is concerned, the Authority while considering their regularizations from the period indicated hereinabove may treat the period in between as notional but however they shall be entitled to regular scale of ClerkB (trainee) from the date their results in viva-voce test are declared.
4. The CAT, in the impugned judgment and order has held that the initial appointments of the petitioners in the years 2006/2007 i.e. about three years prior to the issuance of advertisement for filling up posts on regular basis, were appointments on daily wage basis, entitling them to no guarantee of regularization. The CAT has held that relaxations have been granted to the petitioners or similarly placed candidates and therefore, the relief of regularization cannot be granted to the petitioners. The CAT, in the impugned judgment and order has held that grant of relief of r....
In Konkana Ravinder Goud And Ors. v. Bhavanarishi Co-Operative House Building Society 2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court considered the maintainability of revision against order of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act prior to Amendment Act 9 of 1994 and held that a revision is maintainable. The views expressed by two Division Benches i.e., in the cases of M.B. Ratnam 2003 (1) ALT 688 (DB) (supra) and Konkana Ravinder Goud 2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB) (supra) were considered by a Full bench in Santhosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2011 (3) ALT 683 (FB). ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
