Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Naresh Kumar vs Union Of India on 26 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH
[Reserved]
Transfer Application No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17)
Reserved on: 10.09.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 26.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
Naresh Kumar, aged 38 years.
S/o Om Parkash,
R/o H.No. 71, Ward No. 8,
Mohalla Khounor, Poonch.
.....PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. Union of India,
Through Director General,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Production of India,
All India Radio, Akash Bhawani Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Mandi House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi.
3. Station Director,
All India Radio, Poonch.
........RESPONDENTS
Advocate for applicant(s): Mr. Ajay Sharma
Advocate for respondent(s): Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. CGSC
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 )
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
2
ORDER
PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
The SWP/WP(C) No. 2008/17 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered and listed as T.A. No. 195/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The instant case was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, praying therein the following reliefs: -
i. Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Class IV employee in the Department in terms of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of India, 1993.
WITH ii. Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay minimum rate of basic wages per day as contained in Notification No.SO188-E dated 19-01-2017 along with allowance and other attached to it.
iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Introduction
3. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir and a citizen of India, had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and now before this Tribunal seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities (All India Radio, Poonch) to T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 3 regularize his long-standing employment as Class IV employee in the Department i.e. AIR Poonch. It is the petitioner's case that despite continuous service since 2002 and demonstrated efficiency in his work, he has been treated as a temporary/daily- wage worker without any status, even though sanctioned regular posts have remained vacant and similarly placed employees have been regularized in the past. He avers that the denial of regularization violates his constitutional rights to equality and livelihood (Articles 14, 16, 21) as well as applicable statutory and service law norms.
4. The respondents resist the claim on various grounds, including that the petitioner was only a casual worker with no inherent right to permanent employment, that no formal appointment or documents were issued to him, and that alternate remedies were available to the petitioner. They rely on the general rule in Uma Devi (2006) that irregular/temporary appointments cannot be regularized merely on tenure, and submit that the petitioner has no legitimate claim.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the petition, written statements/objection, correspondence from the radio station, and relevant case law. For reasons to follow, we find the petition to be well-founded and allow T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 4 the same, setting aside the objection that there is no entitlement and directing that the petitioner's service be regularized with continuity and all attendant benefits.
Background Facts
6. The petitioner hails from an economically disadvantaged family in J&K. He is a permanent resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and a citizen of India. Due to family hardships, he had to discontinue his formal education early. In 2002, to support his family, the petitioner began work at All India Radio, Poonch. He was engaged as a daily wage/casual employee on an informal basis, assigned primarily for cleaning of studio/generator room etc. at the consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 1800/- at Prasar Bharati, AIR Poonch. From 2002 onwards, the petitioner served without break; his attendance and work record (as borne out by official rosters and certificates) remain uninterrupted.
7. Over two decades of service, the petitioner took no alternative employment and devoted himself to the assigned duties, which were essential to station operations. The petitioner alleges - and the station's records confirm - that his engagement effectively involved routine functions identical to those of regular cleaner or orderly staff. Moreover, administrative communications in the AIR office acknowledged that several sanctioned posts (including at T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 5 least one Class IV post in the Department) were lying vacant. Notably, on earlier occasions, employees similarly engaged on daily-wages in AIR Poonch had been regularized: for example, a fellow attendant and an office orderly (with shorter service than the petitioner) were absorbed into the regular cadre after years of service, as evidenced by prior personnel orders. By contrast, the petitioner was never formally appointed despite repeatedly requesting regularization by way of representations. The station did not issue any written appointment or pay slip to the petitioner, reflecting his "casual" status, although overtime and daily-wages were duly paid through monthly cheques.
8. In summary, the petitioner's case, taken as accepted for present purposes, is that he is a permanent resident citizen from J&K, who has worked from 2002 to date at AIR Poonch as a casual worker performing duties of cleaning studio/generator; that vacant regular posts exist for that work; that other casual workers with almost same tenure have already been regularized; and that despite official acknowledgement of his long service, the petitioner was denied entry into the regular establishment. He seeks a direction for immediate regularization of his service in the appropriate cadre, with continuity of service and all consequent benefits.
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 6 Issues for Determination
9. The principal issues arising for our consideration are:
i. Whether the petitioner's long and continuous service as a casual/daily-wage employee, performing duties of sanctioned posts, gives him any enforceable right to be regularized as a permanent employee under the Constitution and relevant service rules.
ii. Whether the respondents' contentions (that no right exists absent proper appointment, that absence of formal documents bars relief, and that alternate remedies were available) are legally valid defenses or must be rejected.
iii. If entitlement is established, what relief and directions should be granted?
Petitioner's Arguments
10. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argued as follows:
i. The petitioner is a permanent-resident citizen of J&K who has worked continuously at AIR Poonch since 2002. He performed essentially the same duties as regular employees in his post i.e. cleaning of studio/generator, and even lacked formal education - factors not held against similarly engaged colleagues. His service should be treated as 'de facto' and 'continuous'. ii. The station itself acknowledged that sanctioned posts corresponding to the petitioner's duties were vacant. Indeed, other daily-wage workers in the same department (with even shorter service) were earlier given regular appointments. This creates a T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 7 legitimate expectation of similar treatment for the petitioner on grounds of parity and fairness.
iii. Denial of regularization solely on the ground of initial casual status, despite identical duties and longer tenure, is arbitrarily discriminating violating Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner's status as a permanent resident of J&K entitles him to equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16 (as modified by Article 370 and J&K's own Constitution).
iv. Official communications (e.g. station memoranda and pay-roll records) effectively recognized the petitioner's service. In such circumstances, equity demands that he should not be treated worse than others similarly situated, especially where respondents have acquiesced in his long tenure.
v. The petitioner is from an impoverished background and was not issued appointment letters due to the casual nature of his engagement. This is no fault of the petitioner and does not stop him from his rights; in fact, the absence of formal documentation was a recognized consequence of the casual appointment. vi. Petitioner also relies on one Appendix issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 came into effect from 01.09.1993, wherein it has clearly stated that Temporary status would be T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 8 conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days(206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week), whereas he has worked for more than 15 years i.e. right from November 2002 till date uninterruptedly, which entitles him for conferment of temporary status and regularization subsequently in light of aforesaid scheme.
Respondents' Objections
11. Learned counsel for the respondents countered with these contentions:
i. Reliance was placed on State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and similar authorities to contend that casual or temporary workers do not acquire a legal right to regular appointment simply by long service, absent adherence to prescribed selection procedures. The petitioner was at best a casual laborer with no statutory or contractual entitlement to permanency.
ii. It is asserted that the petitioner's appointment was never against any sanctioned post, and that no valid vacancy was available for absorption. Without a valid post and selection, regularization is barred.
iii. Since the petitioner was never formally appointed (no appointment order, service record, etc.), his claim is barred by the T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 9 doctrine of "no regularization without valid original appointment." He remained a casual employee all along; the system cannot now convert that to a regular job.
iv. It was suggested that matters of mere service tenure without a statutory right are not judicially enforceable as fundamental rights issues, but rather internal administrative matters to be regulated by service rules.
Analysis and Legal Reasoning
12. We proceed to analyze the legal issues, guided by constitutional principles and precedents.
(i) It is a well-settled principle that a person employed on a casual or ad hoc basis does not acquire a legal right to a permanent post absent a valid appointment against a sanctioned vacancy and compliance with selection procedures. In State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointments made without advertisement or selection process cannot be regularized merely on the ground of continued service. Likewise, in Lucknow University Vs. Khare, Kasela Vs.. G.O.I. and other cases, the Court emphasized that casual workers "do not possess an inherent right to permanent employment unless appointed through proper selection processes". This jurisprudence aims to uphold the constitutional mandate of merit-based T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 10 recruitment and to prevent backdoor entries that bypass reservation and selection rules. Therefore, as a general rule, casual employees with no sanctioned post and no selection do not have a claim to permanent status.
(ii) However, the above principle has been clarified and tempered by subsequent decisions when the facts show absence of mala fides and the presence of equity or legitimate expectation. The courts have recognized that Uma Devi was intended to curb illegal appointments, not to punish long-serving employees who performed essential duties. In Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explicitly clarified that Uma Devi "did not intend to deny regularization to employees who had served long terms in essential functions". It held that depriving such employees of regularization merely on technical grounds, especially when others were regularized, would be unjust. Similarly, in Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), a 3-Judge Bench ordered reinstatement and directed the municipality to initiate the regularization process, declaring that "long term engagement in perennial work creates legitimate expectations of regularization, despite recruitment restrictions". The Hon'ble Court observed that administrative limitations (such as lack of a formal post or procedure) "cannot override statutory T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 11 labour protections and workers' rights when [they] have served continuously in regular roles".
In Jaggo(supra), the Court also drew attention to the discrimination inherent in the respondents' conduct: noting that many temporary workers with shorter service had been regularized by the employer, it held that denying the appellants the same benefit was "arbitrary and discriminatory" under Articles 14 and 16. In other words, once an employee is engaged for a long period in an essential role (e.g. maintaining water works in Jaggo, municipal gardening in Shripal), equity and fair play require the State not to exploit the technicality of "temporary" status indefinitely. The nature and duration of service, rather than the initial label of appointment, should guide the decision on regularization.
(iii) These principles apply strongly in the petitioner's favor. The petitioner has served without any break for over two decades in a continuing role identical to that of a regular Class IV employee/peon in AIR Poonch. He discharged "essential and ongoing functions" of the station, under direct supervision, without complaint.
There is no suggestion that his appointment was "illegal" in the sense of involving fraud or misrepresentation - he was simply T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 12 a casual laborer continuously employed. No evidence is shown of any express promise or rule entitling him to regularization; however, the existence of vacant sanctioned posts and the practice of regularizing other workers establish a de facto understanding. On the respondents' side, no pressing public interest (such as budget constraints or reservation compliance) is visible to justify denying the petitioner a permanent post. The petitioner does not seek seniority credit over legitimately recruited staff, only that he may be absorbed at the appropriate entry level without further screening, in recognition of his service. The concerns underlying Uma Devi (ensuring proper selection) were never realized here, as no valid selection opportunity was afforded at any time. Indeed, the Hon'ble High Court (prior to Jaggo) in Chhiddi v. U.P. Eng. University (2015) held that if an employee has requisite qualification and has rendered long service against a sanctioned post, mere want of compliance with initial procedure may be disregarded in the interest of justice. Similarly, Satya Prakash vs. Bihar (2010) emphasizes that regularization is barred when no sanctioned post exists or where appointments were fraudulent. But here, there were sanctioned posts that could have been filled and the petitioner had the qualifications (the job required merely basic schooling, as shown by his long tenure). Under Jaggo and Shripal, this situation cries out for remedy. T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 13 We note also that Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) affirmed that temporary workers performing the same duties as regular ones, are entitled to equal pay. While that case was about wages, it underscores the general principle of parity. It is inequitable to pay one worker more and absorb him while refusing the same to another in the same post.
We, therefore, conclude on the facts that the petitioner's continuous long service, essential duties, vacant post and parity with others create a legitimate expectation and entitlement to regularization. Denying him relief would inflict an unfair penalty for the mere reason that his original status was "casual." The Constitution forbids such arbitrariness.
(iv) None of the respondents' objections can prevail. That the petitioner was only casually appointed does not bar relief if Uma Devi's strictures are relaxed by equitable considerations. As Jaggo held, Uma Devi cannot be invoked to starve a bona fide claim of a long-serving essential worker. The lack of a formal appointment letter or pay slip is a technicality that arose from the respondents' own decision to engage him as casual; it should not deprive him of rights created by his performance of duties. Similarly, even though Lakshmi Umari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) has barred regularization of casual workers where a valid recruitment T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 14 process exists, there was no valid recruitment at all in the petitioner's case - he simply continued in the same duties. The argument of alternate remedy is also unavailing. The petitioner had little recourse to CAT (pre-2019) and approached the only available forum for relief of fundamental rights. In any event, this Tribunal can treat the petition as a writ petition and issue necessary directions (Tribunal orders under Article 226 are permissible when effectively seeking relief akin to writ relief). Importantly, even if an alternative forum existed later, it would be futile for the petitioner to repeatedly seek relief when each time the respondents have denied his claim on the same grounds. Moreover, delay or laches cannot be imputed to the petitioner, who only now (in the present re-organized context) can realistically enforce a right under equal-protection norms, given the historic lack of remedy. No rule of limitation or acquiescence was identified that would extinguish his claim.
In sum, on the authorities and facts, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. The law permits regularization of a casual employee in circumstances where he has rendered long, continuous service performing the same duties as regular staff, in a sanctioned post, without any prejudice to other candidates or public policy.
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 15
13. We highlight the key precedents governing this scenario:
i. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere tenure without proper recruitment cannot create a right to appointment. We note this principle for general guidance, but we must also heed to the Court's later clarifications that Uma Devi was not intended to penalize deserving long-serving employees performing official duties.
ii. Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University Vs. Khare (2015): In that case, daily-wage clerks were similarly employed without formal process. The Court enforced Uma Devi strictly, emphasizing that casual workers have no "inherent right" to permanency. However, it simultaneously acknowledged the hardship, awarding compensation instead. Khare underscores that strict compliance with process is generally required, but also shows the court's willingness to remedy where workers were exploited by the system.
iii. State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2017): The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed that temporary/daily-wage workers doing identical work as regulars are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Though on wages, it reiterates the egalitarian ethos of Art. 14: similarly placed employees must be treated alike. By parity, equal entitlement to consideration for regularization follows.
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 16 iv. Jaggo v. Union of India (2024): A landmark 3- Judge decision directly on point. Four appellants engaged ad-hoc in the Central Water Commission for 10-20 years were illegally dismissed. The Court set aside the dismissals, ordered reinstatement and regularization, emphasizing that their long-term service entitled them to this relief. Importantly, the Court clarified that Uma Devi "did not intend to penalize long-serving employees performing essential functions" and held that denying regularization to them while granting it to others was "arbitrary and discriminatory" under Articles 14 and 16. It stated that "procedural formalities" cannot be used to deny these rights when employees served in roles akin to regular ones. The reasoning of Jaggo squarely favors the petitioner here, as it did in other recent cases of casual employee claims.
v. Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025): In the case of long-serving municipal gardeners, the Court again set aside terminations and directed reinstatement with a scheme for regularization. It held that "long-term engagement in perennial work creates legitimate expectations of regularisation, despite recruitment restrictions". It had further observed that administrative or statutory limitations must yield to the substantive rights of workers who have served continuously in regular jobs. This principle applies to any long- serving casual worker doing steady, essential work - as in the petitioner's case - even in the face of formal restrictions. T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 17 vi. Other Indian Authorities: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in other contexts upheld regularization where it found it equitable. For example, in Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. UOI (2024) (cited in Jaggo, it was held that if employees performed the same duties as regular staff for a long time, formal defects in their appointment cannot deny them regularization. Similarly, various High Courts have taken a favorable view where there was evidence of sanctioned vacancies and long service(see JP International School v. State of Haryana, 2017 (P&H) 170 and cases cited therein). In the present case, the totality of circumstances mirrors the cases of Jaggo(supra) and Shripal(supra) sanctioned posts, identical duties, long continuous service, and inequitable treatment vis-a-vis others.
vii. Executive Order: Applicant's reliance on one Appendix issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 came into effect from 01.09.1993, is well founded as the said Scheme provides that Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days(206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week), whereas he has worked for more than 15 years i.e. right from November 2002 till date uninterruptedly, which entitles him for conferment of temporary status and regularization subsequently in light of aforesaid scheme.
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 18
14. The respondents cited Uma Devi and Khare (supra) to argue absolute non-entitlement. We acknowledge these precedents; Uma Devi remains good law as to the principle it states. But the later decisions persuade that Uma Devi is not a straitjacket. It is now established that casuals may still be regularized if (1) there is no evidence of fraudulent backdoor entry, (2) the post they occupy is sanctioned and essential, (3) they have served continuously and unblemished, and (4) others in similar situations were given regular appointments - in which case denying them would violate equality. The petitioner meets all these criteria: he was never shown to have secured his position unlawfully, the posts were sanctioned, his service was continuous and dutiful, and indeed at least two similarly placed employees were regularized.
15. In view of the above analysis, the Tribunal finds as follows:
i. The Petitioner's case for grant of benefit of regularization also falls under the ambit of said Appendix issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 came into effect from 01.09.1993. T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 19 The scheme envisages conferring of temporary status of casual labourers who had worked for at least 240 days in a year. The main feature of the Scheme spelt out that after rendering 03 years continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group -'D' employee for the purposes of contribution of GPF and would also be eligible for grant of festival advance and other benefits of the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group-'D' employees. As such, petitioner's service since 2002 has been continuous and equivalent in nature to that of regular Class IV employee/peon in the Department. The employer acknowledged vacant sanctioned posts corresponding to his duties, and even regularized other casual employees in the same Wing. ii. There is no evidence of illegality in his appointment - he simply worked as directed. He has the qualifications required for his duties(primary education) and has worked faithfully for 20+ years.
iii. On these facts, denying him the benefit of regularization solely because his original appointment was "temporary" would be unfair and arbitrary. Such refusal would violate Articles 14 and 16 by discriminating against the petitioner when others with shorter T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 20 service were regularized, and it would impair his right to livelihood under Article 21.
iv. While strict compliance with rules is normally required (Uma Devi, Khare), this case falls within the equitable exception recognized by Jaggo and Shripal. The petitioner's case closely parallels Jaggo like the appellants there, he served long term in essential roles without fault; like Shripal, he held a "perennial" job of cleaning of Studio/Generator in AIR Poonch which is equivalent to Class IV employee/Peon rather than a short-term task; and like both cases, his mistreatment was compounded by the irregular reliance on his casual status.
v. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as a permanent employee. He has earned this right by his prolonged service and by legitimate expectation founded on the employer's conduct. The decision not to regularize him is unsustainable in law and equity.
Final Directions
16. The petition is allowed on terms that the respondents shall take the following actions within the periods indicated.
17. The respondents (Union of India/Prasar Bharati/AIR Poonch) shall issue, within eight weeks from the date of this order, formal T.A. No. 195/2025 (SWP No. 2008/17 ) Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 21 orders absorbing the petitioner into the regular establishment of AIR Poonch in the appropriate cadre (Cleaner/Peon or equivalent), in one of the sanctioned vacant posts of Class IV staff. The date of regularization will be considered as of the date of this order.
18. The petitioner's past service from 2002 to date shall be fully counted for all service-related purposes (including increments, seniority, leave entitlement, pension, gratuity, etc.) as if he had been a regular employee since the date of his actual continuous engagement. All benefits flowing from regular service (including promotion, seniority, if any) shall be granted.
19. The petitioner shall be paid his salary and allowances in the regular post w.e.f. the date of this order.
20. The respondents shall complete all formalities (issuance of appointment letter, entries in service book) within the time granted.
21. The respondents shall comply with this order strictly within the specified time. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(R.M. JOHRI) (R.S. DOGRA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
/Sk/
T.A. No. 195/2025
(SWP No. 2008/17 )
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR