Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Mohan Rana vs M/O Finance on 25 March, 2026
1
(Reserved on 12.03.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Gwalior)
Jabalpur, this the 25th day of March, 2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKE ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 426 of 2019
Gopal Krishna Jemini, S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, Aged about 42
years, Occupation - Service, R/o Nawab Sahab Road, Bajrang
Colony, Shivpuri - 473551 (MP). .......Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad
Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal - 474011 (MP).
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior -
474011 (MP). ......Respondents
Alongwith
Original Application No. 563 of 2019
Gaya Prasad, S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Terminated, R/o Nadi Par Tal, Gwalior - 474006
(MP). .......Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Page 1 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27
PRAKASH 17:35:13
DUBEY +05'30'
2
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax MP & CG, Aayakar Bhawan, 48,
Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 474011 (MP).
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior
- 474011 (MP). ......Respondents.
Original Application No. 933 of 2019
Mohan Rana, S/o Shri Narayan Das, Aged about 38 years,
Occupation - Service, R/o House No. 101, Kanti Nagar, Opposite
Dr. Ripu Daman, Loco, Gwalior - 474002 (MP).
...........Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax MP & CG, Aayakar Bhawan, 48,
Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 474011 (MP).
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior
- 474011 (MP). ......Respondents.
Original Application No. 935 of 2019
Mahipal Singh, S/o Shri Mani Ram, aged about 47 years,
Occupation - Service, R/o Opposite Power House, Gol Pahadiya,
Gwalior - 474001 (MP). .........Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax MP & CG, Aayakar Bhawan, 48,
Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 474011 (MP).
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior
- 474011 (MP). ......Respondents.
Page 2 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27
PRAKASH 17:35:13
DUBEY +05'30'
3
Original Application No. 941 of 2019
Pramod Sharma, A/a 52 years, S/o Late Shri Chokhe Lal
Sharma, R/o Mahal Gaon, Thakur Baba Ke Mandir Ke Samne,
Gwalior (MP). .........Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax MP & CG, Aayakar Bhawan, 48,
Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 474011 (MP).
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior
- 474011 (MP). ......Respondents.
AND
Original Application No. 196 of 2020
Ramkishan Sen, S/o Shri Gyarsiram Sen, Aged about 46 years,
Occupation - Casual /Daily Wages Worker, Resident of Shanti
Nagar Colony, Shivpuri, District- Shivpuri (MP) - 473551.
...........Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Income Tax,
Central Secretariat, South Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad
Road, Bhopal (MP) - 462011.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, City Center,
Gwalior (MP) - 474002.
4. The Income Tax Officer, Shivpuri, District - Shivpuri (MP) - 473551.
......Respondents.
Advocate for the applicants :- Shri Alok Kumar Sharma
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Rajendra Singh Dhakar
Page 3 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27
PRAKASH 17:35:13
DUBEY +05'30'
4
ORDER
Delivered by Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
As the subject matter in all the connected O.As are one and the same and the relief/s sought by the applicants are similar, merely having different dates would not in any way disturb the ultimate finding to be given by this Tribunal. Therefore, as requested by the counsel for either sides, all the O.As have been heard together and decided by a common order.
2. In the present original application, the applicants, who were initially engaged between 1995 - 2005 as daily wager to work on different posts in the office of CIT, Gwalior, are seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their services.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that since the applicants have been continuously working in casual capacity with the respondents, they are entitled for regularization. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant cited several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 19.01.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 6626/2014 - Rajesh Saude & Ors and judgment dated 04.4.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 3639/2014 - Suresh Kumar Rajak & Anr, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid judgments, the respondents have regularized the services of the petitioners therein. Page 4 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 5 Therefore, the applicants being similarly placed daily wager, are also entitled for regularization of their services. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580/2024 - Jaggo Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 - Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in above judgments, the applicant's deserves consideration for regularization.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as daily wager without following regular recruitment process. Therefore, mere completion of many years of service does not entitled a daily wage employee to claim regularization. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity, therefore, granting regularization to the applicant would violate the rights of other eligible candidates who are waiting for regular recruitment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal - 2011 (2) SCC 429 and submitted that no direction can be issued to regularize/absorb unless the employee claiming Page 5 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 6 regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the original application being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.
5. Having given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we are of the view that the applicants' long and uninterrupted service for the periods extending will beyond ten years cannot be ignored merely because of their initial appointment was as part time or daily wager. The spirit of his employment must be taken into consideration in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggests their engagement was through any illegal means. While dealing with the similar issue in the case of Jaggo Vs U.O.I & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following and allowed the appeals: -
"10. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping. dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common Page 6 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 7 areas a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.Page 7 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 8
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit Page 8 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 9 acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed-cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle."
6. While dealing with the issue regarding regularization of a casual labour/daily wager, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and has clearly observed in the case of Jaggo (Supra) as under: -
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The Page 9 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 10 said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:-
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).Page 10 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 11
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment:
"continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity."
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even Page 11 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 12 greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations."
7. While allowing the case of Jaggo (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has further emphasized the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and held as following: -
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (Supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointment. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable service over decades."Page 12 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 13
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court following their view in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has also allowed the case of Dharam Singh & Ors (Supra) expressing their categorical view which is as under: -
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabads have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Page 13 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 14 Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practice.
12. ....................
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing canno0t become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that Page 14 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 15 the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003. rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a Page 15 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 16 place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organize work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularizations, we issue the following directions........."
9. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the applicants were engaged as daily wager away back on different dates between 1995 to 2005 and continued to served with the department till 2017. It is also noted that the work for which the applicants were initially engaged by the respondents is being taken by the department through an agency and are no longer as daily wager on the role of the department and also not being Page 16 of 17 ANAND 2026.03.27 PRAKASH 17:35:13 DUBEY +05'30' 17 paid from government fund. Be that as it may, since the applicants had continued to work with the department for more than decade uninterruptedly which has not been denied by the respondents, the claim of the applicants deserves consideration in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra).
10. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Original Applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for regularization in accordance with rules, if the applicants are otherwise found suitable, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
11. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
Page 17 of 17
ANAND 2026.03.27
PRAKASH 17:35:13
DUBEY +05'30'