Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Tapan Kumar Maity vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 20 May, 2026
1 O.A.260/00041of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00041 of 2025
Reserved on 14.05.2026 Pronounced on 20.05.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Tapan Kumar Maity, aged about 44 years, S/O-Kamal
Kumar Maity, presently working as Group-D, O/O Income
Tax Officer, Ward-1, At/PO-Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj,
757002.
.....Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. D.P. Dhalsamant, Counsel
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary
(Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New-Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes represented through its
Under Secretary (Ad.VII), 460 Hotel Samrat,
Chanakyapuri, Ne Delhi-110 021.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha
Region, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar.751007.
4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur,
At/Po/Dist-Sambalpur,768004.
5. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, At/PO-Baripada, Dist-
Mayurbhanj, 757002.
..... Respondents
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Mishra, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30'
2 O.A.260/00041of 2025
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The applicant has filed this O.A. stating inter alia that he is still continuing to discharge the duties under the respondents since 2010 uninterruptedly on daily wage basis and at a subsequent date he is on receipt of 1/30th of minimum pay scale. But the respondents issued letter dated 16.01.2025 directing dis-engagement of the persons engaged after issuance of DOP&T OM dated 04/10.12.2008 which is bad in law. Hence, the applicant has prayed for direction to the respondents to regularize him from the date of his initial engagement by quashing the letter dated 16.01.2025.
2. Respondents have filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant by stating that since the applicant was engaged on casual basis without following the process of rules he is not entitled to the relief sought for in this O.A. However, the continuance of the applicant on daily wage basis since 2010 even till date have not been disputed.
3. Applicant has filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondents reiterating more or less the points raised in the O.A. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 3 O.A.260/00041of 2025
4. After hearing the parties perused the records.
5. We find that law in the matter of regularization has under gone sea changes, and suffice it, to place reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the following cases. The relevant portion of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted herein below:
(i) Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR -SC-865-
"13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Sri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 4 O.A.260/00041of 2025 State as stated in the reply affidavit. Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court."
(ii) Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826)-
"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 longterm 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 labeled 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 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 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."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 5 O.A.260/00041of 2025
(iii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230-
"2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot bemerely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
xxx xxx xxx Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 6 O.A.260/00041of 2025
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments 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. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."
(iv) Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221- the Hon'ble Apex reinforced the principle noted above.
(v) Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025)-
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30'
7 O.A.260/00041of 2025
"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, Ghaziabad 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) 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:Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30'
8 O.A.260/00041of 2025
"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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 longterm 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 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 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 9 O.A.260/00041of 2025 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."
xxx xxx xxx
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 "adhocism" 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 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 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 10 O.A.260/00041of 2025 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.
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. 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.
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 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 11 O.A.260/00041of 2025 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."
(vi) Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors etc], SLP(C) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019 dated 16.12.2025 -
"9. The Court would pause here to indicate that it is not anybody's case that the mode of employment through a contractor itself was illegal or there was any illegality in the terms and conditions of the contract so as to make it ultra vires any constitutional provision or to make it discriminatory, and further there has been no challenge to such contract or any of the terms stipulated in the contract. Another issue on facts, which has been addressed by learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents could not have been exploited by the parties and the fact that they were the same persons being sent, though through different contractors itself shows that the relationship was direct and only a sham camouflage was created; that of a contractor being the intermediary. To this, in our considered view, the answer may not be in clear black and white terms and is still a grey area for the reason that even if the respondents were the same persons who actually worked for the appellant, there can be instances where the new contractor, to maintain continuity and to ensure that there is no complaint from the employer, the appellant in the present case, continues with the same persons who were already employed and were working with the appellant. Thus, there is argument for and against such stand, which we will not dwell on any further. Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support and they are also performing the job which is performed by people on the regular establishment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of contractual employment, that too, by a contractor and not directly by the employer will have to be seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions between a regular employee and such contractual employees is not made, then the basic concept of hiring through various modes and in different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted in law for the reason that employment under a State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the right person.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 12 O.A.260/00041of 2025 When employees/workmen are taken through a contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. The judgment/ order relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers the field in the present case. The judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the respondents is basically different on facts for the reason that there the contractual employment was directly by the principal and in that background contractual workers have been regularized.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and for the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the High Court is set aside and the orders of the Tribunal stand restored.
11. Having passed the order, we feel that sometimes justice is required to be tempered with mercy as human factors cannot be totally lost sight of. In such view of the matter, we would require the appellant to look into whether the jobs which were being done by the respondents, in the background that they have not been disengaged or returned to the contractor on the ground of being unsatisfactory, having uninterrupted service under the appellant for decades can be regularized on posts, which prima facie appears to be perpetual in nature. We make it clear that this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only as it has been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. We expect the appellant to take a compassionate and sympathetic view in the matter."
(vii) Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129-
"11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our disapproval of the manner in which the High Court has approached the present lis. The controversy before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of precedents without engaging with the core constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the dispute to Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 13 O.A.260/00041of 2025 one of acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger constitutional context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity. The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position. 11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced.
xxx xxx xxx 11.5. The consistent case of the appellants has been that the respondent-State's refusal to grant regularization is arbitrary and therefore warrants judicial interference. Article 14 of the Constitution casts a negative obligation upon the State to treat all persons equally, and arbitrariness, being antithetical to the equality principle, is proscribed as violative of Article 14. 11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar Nath v. Comm. Income Tax, long ago clarified that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of waiver. Consequently, if the action of the respondent-State is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the mere fact that the appellants' engagement was governed by contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights."
(viii) Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156- The Tribunal dismissed the prayer for regularization of causal employees by applying the decision of the Uma Devi (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High court and in challenge, the Hon'ble Apex court held that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the applicants therein by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal by observing that 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 in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 14 O.A.260/00041of 2025 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 services over decades. Accordingly, directed to regularize the service of the applicants therein.
(ix) Prem Chand and others vs State of Punjab and another, Civil Appeal No.12139 of 2025 dated March 16, 2026-
"16. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants are entitled to the relief of regularization of their services.
17. At the outset, it must be noted that it is not the case of the Respondents that the Appellants do not possess the requisite qualifications for the post in question or that the requisite vacancies are unavailable. It is also an admitted fact that the appointments were made against existing vacancies and not against supernumerary or surplus posts created artificially.
18. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the Appellants are covered under the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003, 15.12.2006 and 18.03.2011 issued by the State of Punjab for regularization of ad hoc employees. It is not disputed that the Appellants were appointed before 13.06.1996. The Respondents have sought to exclude the Appellants solely on the ground that their service tenures contained breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days. Therefore, it has been argued that their engagements were not continuous, making them ineligible under the policy. Furthermore, it has been argued that they are also ineligible under the policy dated 18.03.2011 as the Appellants were no longer in service when it came into force.
19. We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30'
15 O.A.260/00041of 2025 are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.
20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer examination, artificial in nature. The Appellants were consistently re-engaged, save for short breaks, and continued to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the same posts. The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial employment as ad hoc.
21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside as also the order of dismissal from service of the Appellants dated 23.01.2008. The Appellants, as a consequence, shall be deemed to be in continuous service without any break.
22. The services of the Appellants would stand regularised with effect from the date services of the similarly situated persons have been regularised under the policy decision dated 26.05.2003. The Respondents are directed to pass the order of regularisation of the services of the Appellants within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Their pay and allowances shall be fixed from the initial date of regularisation. The Appellants would be entitled to continuity of service with all consequential benefits including increments and other benefits as a regular employee except for the actual financial benefits till date. The Appellants in case report for duty on or before 30th of April, 2026 would be entitled to the pay and allowances from today onwards failing which the said benefits shall be payable from the date of reporting for duty. In case, the Appellants have attained the age of superannuation, the consequential retiral benefits be calculated from the date of their reporting and released to them within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
23. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. On examination of the fact of the matter with reference to the decisions cited above, we find the letter dated 16.01.2025 deserves Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30' 16 O.A.260/00041of 2025 to be quashed because despite the said letter the applicant has been allowed to continue to discharge the duty on casual basis on payment of 1/30th minimum pay scale as per rules and therefore, the said letter dated 16.01.2025 is accordingly quashed. Since the applicant has been continuing for more than one and half decades, respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Shripal & Another (supra), Dharam Singh & Ors (supra), Chander Mohan Negi and others (supra), H Vinod Kumar & Ors. (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra), and Prem Chand & Ors (supra) within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above.
Pending MAs if any stand disposed of. No Costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) KB/PS Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.05.22 12:08:35 +05'30'