Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Leelu Ram vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh on 6 October, 2025
1 OA No. 1411/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1411/2018
PRONOUNCED ON: 15.10.2025
RESERVED ON: 06.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Leelu Ram, aged 52 years, Son Sayala Ram sweeper
Resident of House No. 2274, Sector 52, Chandigarh
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anupam Bhanot)
Versus
1. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh
Through Secretary to the Home Secretary,
Chandigarh - 160011
2. The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Sector 18, UT, Chandigarh - 160018
3. The Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer,
UT Chandigarh Sector 17, Chandigarh -160017
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Vinay Gupta)
B SHRI B2025.10.16
SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30'
2 OA No. 1411/2018
ORDER
PER: RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(A) May direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation of his services as sweeper as is performing duties on contract basis since 1995, i.e., more than 22 years. A copy of Dy. No. 782 dated 30.03.2006 annexed as Annexure A-1 considering that respondent department approached Hon'ble High Court vide CWP 9800 of 2009 which was dismissed and order passed by Ld. Labour Court was upheld order dated 19.05.2010 is annexed as Annexure A-4. (B) Further as the respondent department approached the Hon'ble High Court Chandigarh by way of Civil Writ Petition No.: 9800 of 2009 which was dismissed and order passed by Ld. Labour Court was upheld, A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure A-4, which has attained finality, copy of paper book is being placed on record ipso-facto to be considered as appointment letter of the applicant/petitioner and consider the genuine claim of regularisation of services of the applicant from 07.08.1995 the date of joining.
(C) May exempt the applicant from the condition of filing certified copies of the Annexures A-1 to A-8 may kindly be dispensed with under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 22(1) Chapter 4. P Vol. V of the High Court Rules and Order for permission to file Photostat/typed/extract/translated copies of annexures; (D) Serving of the advance notices upon the respondents may also be disposed with;
(E) Cost of the OA may also kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant joined as a Sweeper on 08.07.1995 and continuously worked B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 3 OA No. 1411/2018 sincerely/honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of his superiors. His working hours were increased from two hours to four hours per day (2001-2006), reflecting the need for his services by department. The department themselves recommended his name for full-time appointment vide Dy. No. 782 dated 30.03.2006. Despite an unblemished record, services of applicant were illegally terminated in August, 2006 by the respondents. Vide Award dated 02.01.2009, Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 9800 of 2009, decided on 19.05.2010. Thereafter, the applicant repeatedly submitted representations and legal notices for regularisation of services, but respondents failed to act upon. Till date, despite working for three decades, i.e., 30 years of continuous service (1995-2023), the applicant has been denied regularisation arbitrarily. He submits that the arbitrary and discriminatory denial of regularisation violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the applicant has been continuously employed, reinstated with continuity. Earlier also, the applicant approached the Tribunal vide OA No. 1239/2017 and the same was withdrawn by the applicant on 14.12.2017 with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the claim of the applicant, relies upon the following judgments:-
B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 4 OA No. 1411/2018
(i) State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that irregular appointees with long years of service may not claim regularisation as a matter of right, but it carved out an exception for cases where the workman has been continuously employed for over 10 years without intervention of courts. The petitioner squarely falls within this exception.
(ii) State of Jharkhand vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors. (2023) SCC online SC 45, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the employees with long, continuous service, who have been treated as permanent for all practical purposes, cannot be left in limbo indefinitely.
(iii) Jaggo vs. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated and held that denial of regularisation of services and refusing regularisation of services of the part time workers simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
(iv) Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the respondents to regularise the services of the claimants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant was officially recommended for full-time B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 5 OA No. 1411/2018 appointment in 2006, his service record is unblemished and has served department for nearly three decades. The denial of regularisation despite repeated assurances defeats the principle of legitimate expectation. He submits that in Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognised as a facet of Article 14 and in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, the Court held that equal pay for equal work must apply to contractual/daily wage employees discharging same duties as permanent employees.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a class-IV employee (Sweeper), dependent on job for his livelihood. Arbitrary denial of regularisation, despite more than 30 years of service violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "right to livelihood" is an integral part of the right to life. In Kehar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) SCC Online SC 428, the Court directed regularisation where denial of such relief to Class-IV employees would amount to exploitation. In nutshell, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be considered for regularisation and benefitted with financial/pensionary benefits as he is due to retire and he has served the department for more than three decades. B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 6 OA No. 1411/2018
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the claim of the applicant and submits that the applicant has been working only on hourly basis as a part-time sweeper and was paid from contingency funds of the Government. There exists no sanctioned post of Sweeper in the regular cadre, therefore, the claim for regularisation is not maintainable. Respondents have relied upon two judgments, i.e., Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (AIR 2007 SC 528), it has been held that no regularisation shall be made without sanctioned post. Furthermore, in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429 and in Union of India & Ors. vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 2731), it has been held that part-time/casual employees cannot claim regularisation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the applicant's engagement was purely need-based, part-time on hourly basis and contingency paid, which does not create any vested right for absorption into Government service. The Government has not framed any policy for regularisation of part- time/contingency paid workers. In absence of such policy, no relief can be granted. Respondent further contends that the applicant is being paid as per engagement terms and minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and no further benefit is legally admissible.
B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 7 OA No. 1411/2018
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the judgements in Union of India vs. Iimo Devi (AIR 2021 SC 4855) and Union of India vs. A.S. Pillai (2010) 13 SCC 448, it has been held that part-time workers are not entitled to parity with regular employees.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the material and pleadings available on record.
10. We find that there is no dispute regarding the facts that the applicant was a part time sweeper and is paid from contingency fund of the Government and that there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper in the regular cadre. The applicant's engagement was purely need based part-time, on hourly basis and that there is no Government policy for regularisation for such part-time contingency paid workers. Consequently, the applicant is being paid as per the engagement terms and minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
11. We have also perused various cases relied upon by both the parties.
12. We find that the contention that there is no regular post of Sweeper in the office all this while and that the part-time Sweeper was employed to clean the office premises, is not tenable. The fact is that the applicant was carrying out a critical need based function of maintaining the cleanliness in the office B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 8 OA No. 1411/2018 premises all these years. Hence, it cannot be negated by simply saying that he was not employed against a regular vacancy. This act is pure exploitation and rejection of his contention for regularisation by saying that 'no posts exist', sounds very hollow. In our view, it is always possible to re-align the existing posts and create a post for such a critical need based function. The argument that there is no regularisation policy for such workers is not tenable. This misuse of temporary/part-time employment reflects a broader systematic failure that impacts workers' right to livelihood and their job security. Using temporary employees for works which are essential and integral to the functioning of the institution deprives the workers of their dignity, security and benefits that regular employees are entitled to.
13. Even in the case of Iimo Devi (supra) decided on 07.10.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 20 that "we have no reason to doubt that the petitioners can rationalise their resources and sanction some regular posts every year so that the respondents can be adjusted on regular basis without any unbearable additional financial burden on the Department." The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the issue of workmen in case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad decided on 31.01.2025 has acknowledged need for initiating a fair and transparent process for regularising workmen considering the fact they performed perennial municipal duties integral to the B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 9 OA No. 1411/2018 functioning of the institution. In Jaggo vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that refusing regularisation to part-time workers simply because of their original terms is contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the applicant, who joined the organisation in 1995 and his working hours were increased from two to four hours on day-to-day basis from 2001 to 2006 and thereafter, the Department has recommended his name for full time employment on 30.03.2006 though his services were terminated in August, 2006. The Labour Court vide order dated 02.01.2009 directed reinstatement with continuity of services with 50% back wages, which is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 9800/2009 decided on 19.05.2010. Thereafter, despite repeated representations and legal notice seeking regularisation of services, no action has been taken by the respondents.
15. The applicant is a Class-IV employee (Sweeper) depending on his part time job for earning his livelihood but not being regularised is violative of Article 21 and 23 of the Constitution. It is also an exploitative practice and against fairness and equity. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, specially, after the Labour Court's re-instatement, in our considered view, is also applicable in this case. Hence, we direct the respondents to regularise the B SHRI B2025.10.16 SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30' 10 OA No. 1411/2018 services of the applicant by re-aligning some existing post in the same pay scale as recommended vide Diary No. 782 dated 30.03.2006 and adjusting him accordingly, from the date of his re-instatement by the Labour Court vide order dated 02.01.2009. He is to be granted continuity in service and parity of pay and allowances with similarly situated employees, i.e., permanent employees from the above date.
16. Action in this regard is to be completed by the Competent Authority, within six weeks of receipt of this order. OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/akshaya/
B SHRI B2025.10.16
SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30'