Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Dhobaram Swain vs Archoelogical Survey Of India on 10 October, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020
Reserved on 09.10.2025 Pronounced on 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Dhobaram Swain, aged about 51 years, S/o-
Natabar Swain, At/PO-Mandara, P.S.-Polsara,
Dist.-Ganjam, presently working as a Casual
Labourer awarded with 1/30th Status at
Junagarh, Archeological Survey of India site,
Pandia, Dist-Ganjam.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through the
Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan,
C. Wing, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Director General, Archaeological of India,
Janapath, New Delhi- 110011.
3. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological
Survey of India, Bhubaneswar Circle, At-Tosali
Apartment, Block No. VI (B), PO-Satyanagar,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751007.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 rejecting his prayer for RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 2 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 regularization and to direct the respondents to confer him temporary status and to regularize his services inter alia stating that he was engaged on casual/daily wage basis on 10.05.1988 and, while continuing as such, he was granted 1/30th basic pay vide order dated 22.06.2009. It is stated that despite his long continuance, he has not been regularized. In support of his prayer, he has placed into service, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh Vs State of UP, 2025 INSC 998.
2. On the other hand, based on the averments made in the counter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has denied the assertion of the applicant that he was engaged on casual basis on 10.05.1988 and has stated that the certificate produced by the applicant at Annexure-A/1, showing his engagement from 10.05.1988, cannot be taken into authenticity as the certificate does not contain any file number or date of dispatch etc. However, it has been submitted that the applicant was engaged as casual labourer on 14.01.2000 and was granted 1/30th pay of the minimum wages of Group-D vide order dated 22.06.2009. It RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 is stated that in compliance of the earlier orders of this Bench and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 01.08.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 4418/2019, the case of the applicant was duly considered by the respondents but the same was rejected since applicant does not fulfill the conditions provided in DoP&T OM dated 01.09.1993 for conferment of temporary status. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also relied on the decision of this Bench dated 13.09.2024 in OA No. 507/2023 (Jatindra Dash Vs UOI & Ors) to contend that the present case being same and similar to the case of Jatindra Dash and the said OA having been dismissed, the present OA is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he has submitted that besides merit this OA is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
3. Going by the stand taken by the respondents that the applicant was engaged on casual basis on 14.01.2000 and he was granted 1/30th pay vice office order dated 22.06.2009, it establishes that the applicant is in employment for last atleast 25 years. We have gone through the earlier decision of this Bench dated 13.09.2024 in OA No. 507/2023. We find that after the RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 decision in OA No. 507/2023, the decision in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court came into the field wherein Their Lordships after considering the earlier decisions in the matter of regularization rendered in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and in Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, held as under:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit 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, Ghaziabad5 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 RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 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, 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 practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so- allows an adverse inference under well- established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 "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 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.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short- term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
12. We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in 21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 Higher Education Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot 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 the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 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 place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise 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 RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 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 regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay- scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
4. On examination, we find that the grievance of the applicant for his regularization deserves affirmative consideration in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). Hence, the order of rejection dated 13.11.2019 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the applicant in the light of the observation and direction made in the case of Dharam Singh RAVI KUMAR 2025.10.10 17:00:19 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 (supra) within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. In the result, the OA stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.10.10 17:00:19
+05'30'