Ravi Shripal vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2026

[Cites 26, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ravi Shripal vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2026

                                           1




Digitally                                                  2026:CGHC:23351-DB
signed
by                                                                        AFR
SHAYNA
KADRI

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                        Reserved for orders on : 30.03.2026
                           Order passed on : 14.05.2026

                               WPS No. 7027 of 2021

        1 - Gorelal S/o Shri Latel Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Boudi
        Para, Sagun Garden, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Pin No.
        497001
        2 - Rajbeer Das S/o Late Madhu Das Aged About 44 Years R/o Christ
        Milan Para, Ward No. 10, Namna Kala, Ambikapur, District Surguja
        Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 497001
                                                              --- Petitioner(s)

                                       versus

        1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
        Ministry Of Finance, North Blcok, New Delhi 110001.
        2 - Central Board Of Direct Tases Through Its Chairman, North Block,
        New Delhi 110001
        3 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
        Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011
        4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil
        Lines, Raipur, Chhatisgarh 492001
        5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar,
        Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001
        6 - Zonal Account Officer Aayakar Bhawan Hoshangabad Raod,
        Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011
        7 - Rajeshwar Sonwani S/o Mangal Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o
        Bhattapara, Bihand Hospita Ambikapur 497001
        8 - Mohan Lal Mahanand (Died) Through Lrs.- (As Per Honble Court
        Order Dated 17-12-2024)
        8.1 - (A) Smt. Sukhni Bai W/o Mohan Lal Mahanand Aged About 50
        Years R/o Sheetla Ward Shakti Para Near Karbala Ambikapur,
        Chhattisgarh- 497001
        9 - Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bhagirathi Samund Aged About 38
        Years R/o Laxmipur, Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur 497001
                                                            --- Respondent(s)

2 WPS No. 1964 of 2026

1 - Deepak Shrivas S/o Shri Chetram Shrivas, Aged About 48 Years R/o Amapara, Khapra Bhatti, Near Sai Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492001

---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pccit), Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ccit), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G., Pin No. 492001 6 - Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Aykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 462016 7 - Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation Civil Line) Raipur (C.G.) 492001 8 - Ravi Shripal S/o Late Vasudas Shripal @ Vasudev Shripal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Sbi Colony, Durga Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001 9 - Manjeet Soni S/o Shri Tirkar Soni, Aged About 43 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar Road, Behra Colony City Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492001 10 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mallu Ram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramkund Para, Near Life Birth Hospital, Gangaram Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492001 11 - Jyoti Ram Khare S/o Shri Teeju Ram Khare Aged About 51 Years R/o Durga-Para, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 14002 of 2025 1 - Rewa Ram Gaykwad S/o Temsingh Gayakwad Aged About 46 Years R/o Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 491001 3 2 - Rampal Sahu S/o Kunbul Sahu Aged About 59 Years C/o Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 491001 3 - Bhagwat Prasad Yadava S/o Lakshman Prasad Yadav Aged About 49 Years C/o Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 491001

3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 6 - Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai (C.G.) Pin No. 491-001 7 - Lalit Swami S/o Shri Ashok Swami Aged About 40 Years R/o 2/9 Income Tax Colony Sector-6 Bhilai Nagar District- Durg Village- Bodal, Post- Kankot, Tehsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) 491001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9710 of 2025 1 - Sanyasi Rao S/o Shri Mimadri Rao Aged About 46 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 4 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (P C C I T) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Not Impleaded In Original Application But Impleaded Herein) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (C C I T) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (C I T) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 6 - Joint Commissioner Of Income- Tax Range- Ii, Field Pay, Unit Central Revenue Building Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 7 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal (M.P.) Pin No.- 462011 8 - Kalu Nayak S/o Late Guruji Nayak Aged About 28 Years R/o Bairan Bazar, Near Kundrapara Hunman Bhakt Ram Mandir Raipur (C.G.) 492001 9 - Kumari Neema Masih D/o Shri Johnson Masih Kripal Aged About 35 Years R/o Noorani Chowk Raja, Talab Raipur C.G 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 14029 of 2025 1 - Ram Narayan Soni S/o Shri Late Atma Ram Soni Aged About 63 Years R/o Nathpara Subash Nagar, Raipur, C.G.- 492002

---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal (M.P.) Pin No.- 462-011 7 - Rajendra Yaduwanshi S/o Shri D.P. Yaduwanshi Aged About 56 Years Ro Sriram Chowk, Teekrapara, Raipur, (C.G.)- 492001

--- Respondent(s) 5 WPS No. 9480 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gaya Ram Soni, Aged About 47 Years R/o Gram Lakhra, Post- Lakhram Thana Ratanpur, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 2 - Ravi Kumar Bais, S/o. Shri Damodar Prasad Bais, Aged About 46 Years R/o Shri Krishna Goshala, Madhuvan Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 3 - Devchandra Nirmalkar @ Dev Chandra Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Uday Ram Nirmalkar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Office Gadwar Thana, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur 495001 4 - Ramanchal Rana @ Rumanchal Rana, S/o Shri Achuch Rana, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 5 - Sunl Dewangan @ Sunil Dewangan, S/o Melan Ram Dewangan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Baniya Para, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhawan Vyapar Bihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin No.- 495001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal (M.P.) Pin No. 462011 7 - Joint Director Of Income Tax (Inv), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 8 - Anil Yadav S/o Badri Prasad Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Udai Chowk, Katiya Para, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 9 - Vishnu Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/o In Front Of Sai Temple, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur 495001 10 - Rukshna Begam, W/o Late Hanif Ali, Aged About 55 Years R/o Marhimai Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s) 6 WPS No. 14113 of 2025 1 - Manjeet Soni S/o Shri Tirkar Soni Aged About 43 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar Road, Behra Colony City Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 492001 (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned As Shri Virkar Soni) 2 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mallu Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramkund Para, Near Life Birth Hospital, Gangaram Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pccit) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ccit) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 6 - Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation) Aykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal M.P. 462016 7 - Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation Civil Line) Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 8 - Ravi Shripal S/o Late Vasudas Shripal @ Vasudev Shripal Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Sbi Colony, Durga Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 9 - Jyoti Ram Khare S/o Shri Teeju Ram Khare Aged About 51 Years R/o Durga Para, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 10 - Deepak Shrivas S/o Shri Chetram Shrivas Aged About 48 Years R/o Amapara, Khapra Bhatti, Near Sai Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 101 of 2026 1 - Mannu Das S/o Shri Firanta Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Quarter No. C/3 Canera Bank Colony, Durg Naka, Durg (C.G.). Current Address- Daya Nagar Risali, Tehsil And District Durg Pin Code 491001, (Wrongly Mentioned As Mannu Das S/o Shri Phiranta Das) 7 2 - Rakesh Diwedi S/o Shesh Narayan Dewedi Aged About 50 Years R/o 3a Line No. 14 Sector No.2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh Pin Code 491001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 6 - Indrajeet Gedam S/o Punara Gedam Aged About 47 Years Resident At House No. 58, Near Gulab Talour, Sharda Para Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) Pin Code 491001 7 - Pawan Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ramashya Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Jantani Madol Town, West-4 Ward No.1, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) Pin Code- 491001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8186 of 2025 1 - Swaraj Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Awadh Bihari Lal Shrivastava Aged About 54 Years R/o Purani Basti, Kasthya Para, Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 10279 of 2025 1 - Ravi Shripal S/o Late Vasudas Shripal @ Vasudev Shripal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Sbi Colony, Durga Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pccit), Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462016 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income (Ccit) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 6 - Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Aykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 462016 7 - Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation Civil Line) Raipur (C.G.) 492001 8 - Jyoti Ram Khare S/o Shri Teeju Ram Khare Aged About 51 Years R/o Durga- Para, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 9 - Deepak Shrivas S/o Shri Chetram Shrivas, Aged About 48 Years R/o Amapara, Khapra Bhatti, Near Sai Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code- 492001 10 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mallu Ram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramkund Para, Near Life Birth Hospital, Gangaram Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code- 492001 11 - Manjeet Soni, S/o Shri Virkar Soni, Aged About 43 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar Road, Behra Colony City Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code- 492001

--- Respondent(s) 9 WPS No. 171 of 2026 1 - Khilawan Singh S/o Late Manrakhan Korse Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Bodal Post- Kankot, Tehsil Patan District- Durg (C.G.) 491001, 2 - Uttam Singh Gayakwad S/o Late Ram Chand Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Deori Post- Anda Teh- Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.) 491001, (Wrongly Mentioned As Uttam Ssing Gayakwad) 3 - Panchram Kosre S/o Manrakhan Kosre Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Badal Post- Kanakot Tehsil Patan District- Durg (C.G.) 491001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance North Block- New Delhi-110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through- Its Chairman North Block- New Delhi, 11000.

3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan Hoshangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001, 5 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No-492001, 6 - Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhilai Range Aykar Bhawan New Civic Centre Bhilai (C.G.) Pin No. 491001, 7 - Sukhen Kumar Joshi S/o Beer Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bodan Post- Kanakot Tehsil Patan District- Durg C.G. 491001 8 - Pawan Kumar Bogde S/o Gyaniram Bogde Aged About 48 Years R/o Prem Nagar Durg C.G. 491001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9725 of 2025 1 - Sahabuddin S/o Sheikh Jamaluddin Aged About 42 Years R/o H. No.

- 35/2434, Near Jagannath Mandir Sector - 5, Vallabh Nagar, Pachpedi Nak Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 10 1 - Union Of India R/o Village - Harfatrai, Po - Achouta, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 493773 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 5 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 492001 6 - Income Tax Officer Aykar Bhawan Shankardah Road Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Pin 493773 7 - Kamal Kumar Ber S/o Late Shayam Lal Ber R/o Village - Harfatrai, Po - Achouta, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 493773 8 - Anil Kumar Rangari S/o Kartik Ram Rangari R/o Village - Mathuradih, Post Office - Achouta, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 493773

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11768 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Hari Ram Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Plaza- 2, Mathpurena, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ) Pin No. 492-001 ( Address ) Wrongly Mentioned As Near Kalibadi, Nehru Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh )

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India R/o Uttkal Nagar Kundrapara, Bairan Bazar Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pccit ), Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal ( M.P. )462011 ( Not Impleaded In Orginal Application But Impleaded Herein ) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ( Cgit ) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax ( Cit ) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ). Pin No. 492-001 11 6 - Mayaram Nayak S/o Late Guru Ji Nayak Aged About 42 Years R/o Uttkal Nagar Kundrapara, Bairan Bazar Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 7 - Sekhar Singh Markam S/o Amar Singh Markam Aged About 51 Years R/do Old Pension Bada, Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 8 - Murat Lal Sarpa S/o Punau Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Math Puraena Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 9 - Ravindra Kumar Mahanand S/o Kartik Ram Mahanand Aged About 33 Years R/o Behind Primary School, Sadar Police Line, Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 10 - Tulsi Rao S/o Shri Narsalya Aged About 38 Years R/o New Pension Wada Arvind Nagar Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 11 - Janardan Rao. Mohite Shri Guhri Rao Mohite C/o Chand Rattan Singh Jhanda Chowk Sanjay Nagar Tikra Para Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001 12 - Prahald Singh Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Dr. Vadhwani, Durga Chowk, Katora, Talab, Raipur ( C.G. ) 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9706 of 2025 1 - Pawan Kumar Bogde S/o Gyaniram Bogde Aged About 48 Years R/o Prem Nagar, Durg C.G. 491001.

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.

3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal M.P. 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 6 - Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhilai Range, Aykar Bhawan New Civil Center Bhilai C.G. Pin No. 491001 12 7 - Khilawan Singh S/o Late Manrakhan Korse Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Bodal Post Kankot, Tehsil Patan, District Durg C.G. 491001. 8 - Uttam Sing Gayakwad S/o Late Ram Chand Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Deori, Post Anda, Teh- Gunderdehi, District Durg C.G. 491001.

9 - Sukhen Kumar Joshi S/o Beer Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Bodan Post Kankot, Tehsil- Patan, District Durg C.G. 491001. 10 - Panchram Kosre S/o Manrakhan Kosre Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Badal, Post Kankot, Tehsil- Patan, District Durg C.G. 491001.

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9737 of 2025 1 - Rashtra Pal Vandre S/o Laxman Rao Vandre, Aged About 47 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 2 - Sajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Baghirathi Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Jaichandi Building Works, Tringa Chowk, Khushl Pur, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 3 - Rakesh Kumar Mahanand S/o Kishan Lal Mahanand, Aged About 47 Years R/o Bairon Bazar, Kundra Para, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 4 - Vimal Kumar Louvanshi S/o Parashram Luvanshi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Lic Colony, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001, Mowa Raipur

--- Respondent(s) 13 WPS No. 14041 of 2025 1 - Kesh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Goutam Rajak Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Resaimata Mandir, Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari C.G. 493773.

3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 6 - Rashtra Pal Vandre S/o Laxman Rao Vandre Aged About 47 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. 492001. 7 - Sajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Baghirathi Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Jaichandi Building Works, Tringa Chowk, Khushl Pur, Raipur C.G. 492001.

8 - Rakesh Kumar Mahanand S/o Kishan Lal Mahanand Aged About 47 Years R/o Bairon Bazar, Kundra Para, Raipur C.G.- 492001. 9 - Vimal Kumar Louvanshi S/o Parashram Luvanshi Aged About 48 Years R/o Near L I C Colony, Raipur C.G.- 492001. Mowa Raipur C.G.

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 10288 of 2025 1 - Vishnu Das Mahant S/o Shri C.D. Mahant Aged About 51 Years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony, P.O. Ompur Korba ( C.G. ). 495683 2 - Hirendra Kumar Lahre S/o Shri G.R. Lahre Aged About 47 Years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony O.P. Ompur Korba ( C.G. ). 495683 3 - Smt. Meena Nayak D/o Shri Dhaninag Aged About 52 Years R/o Near River Side, Jabdapar New Korba ( C.G. ) 14 4 - Smt. Sangeeta Soni @ Yogeshwari Soni D/o Shri S.L. Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Q. No. F-649, Block No. 82, Shanti Kranti Nagar Oarri West Korba ( C.G. ). 495683 ( Name And Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Orginal Application ) 5 - Naresh Kumar Yadav S/o S.L. Yadav Aged About 40 Years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony, P.O. Ompur Korba ( C.G. ). 495683 6 - Tulsi Ram Khairwar S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Khairwar Aged About 48 Years C/o M/331 Ompur Roygmar Colony, P.O. Ompur Korba ( C.G. ). 495683 ( Name And Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Origional Application )

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through- Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal ( M.P. ). 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). Pin 492-001 5 - Commssioner Of Income Tax Ayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar, Bilaspur ( C.G. ). Pin No. 495-001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal ( M.P. ) Pin No. 462-011

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 10308 of 2025 1 - Shankar Lal Sahu S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram Ruchinda The Pusour, District Raigarh, C.G. 496001 2 - Hukum Singh Nishad S/o Shri Azad Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Hundi Chouk Near Gayatri Mandir District Raigarh, C.G. 496001 3 - Satish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jaggnnath Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Sanjay Maidan, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. 496001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 15 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal, M.P. 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, C.G. Pin No. 495-001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal, M.P. Pin No. 462-011 7 - Guru Prasad Namdeo S/o Shri Prasad Prasad Namdeo Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandni Chowk, Sonar Para, District Raigarh, C.G. 496001 8 - Radhi Kishan Nishad S/o Shri Yashvant Singh Nishad Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Dharamshala Gal Raigarh District Raigarh, C.G. 496001 9 - Rajkumar Khapardha S/o Late Damodar Aged About 49 Years R/o Nayaganj Behind Itwari Bazar, Raigarh District Raigarh, C.G. 496001 10 - Ajay Yadav S/o Laxmi Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Beladula, Kamla Nagar, Raigarh District Raigarh, C.G. 496001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11757 of 2025 1 - Santosh Mahanand S/o Bhim Raj Mahanand Aged About 49 Years R/o Utkal Nagar, Civil Lines, New Akashwani, Raipur, District Raipur C.G., Pin No. 492001.

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block New Delhi- 110001. 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block New Delhi- 110001.

3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (P C C I T), Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Not Impleaded In Original Application But Impleaded Herein) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (C C I T), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (C I T), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9736 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bhagirathi Samund Aged About 52 Years R/o Laxmipur, Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur C.G. 497001.

7 - Gorelal S/o Shri Latel Prasad Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Boudi Para, Sagun Garden, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. Pin No. 497-001. 8 - Rajeshwar Sonwani S/o Mangal Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhattapara, Bihand Hospita Ambikapur District Surguja C.G.497-001. 9 - Mohan Lal Mahanand (Died Represented Thrugh Smt. Sukhni Bai) W/o Late Mohan Lal Mahanand Aged About 50 Years R/o Sheetla Ward Shakti Para Near Karbala Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 497-001 10 - Rajbeer Das S/o Late Madhu Das Aged About 44 Years R/o Christ Milan Para, Ward No. 10, Namna Kala, Ambikapur, District- Surguja C.G. Pin No. 497001.

--- Respondent(s) 17 WPS No. 14134 of 2025 1 - Gopal Sahu S/o Manbodhram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Shivnagar, Handipara, Ward Tatyapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pccit) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ccit) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 6 - Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Investigation Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 492-001 7 - Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) 9th Floor, Cbd Building, Sector 21, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 492-001 8 - Joshi Shendre S/o Shri Badru Shendre Aged About 55 Years R/o Pandri Gaganath Raipur (C.G.) 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9746 of 2025 1 - Mayaram Nayak S/o Late Guru Ji Nayak Aged About 43 Years R/o Utkal Nagar, Kundrapara, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - Murat Lal Sarpa S/o Punau Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Math Puraena Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 3 - Ravindra Kumar Mahananad S/o Kartik Ram Mahanand Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Primary School Sardar Police Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 4 - Tulsi Rao S/o Shri Narsaiya Aged About 51 Years R/o New Pension Wada, Arvind Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 18 5 - Janardan Rao Mohite S/o Shri Guhri Rao Mohite Aged About 55 Years C/o Chand Ratan Singh, R/o Jhanda Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi, 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (Mp) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin No. 492001 6 - Sekhar Singh Markam S/o Amar Singh Markam Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 7 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Hari Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Kalibadi, Nehru Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 8 - Prahlad Singh Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Dr. Vadhwani, Durga Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8258 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Samund S/o Shri Kamlu Prasad Samund Aged About 42 Years R/o Shri Krishna Goshala, Madhuban Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 2 - Dharam Raj Patel S/o Shri Indramani Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o House No.-146, Mini Mata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 3 - Dinesh Mishra S/o Shri R.K. Mishra Aged About 45 Years R/o Savitri Bhawan, Near Pathak Bagicha, Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 19 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 3 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492-001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar , Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin No. 495-001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Aayakar Bhawan, Hosangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) Pin No.- 462-011 7 - Shatruhan Yadav S/o Shri Judawan Yadav Aged About 41 Years C/o Gakul Shriwas, Ramayan Chowk Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 8 - Prasna Singh S/o Shri Lt. Shri Govind Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Near River Side, Jabdapar, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 9 - Gokul Ram Verma S/o Dhani Ram Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Ram Nagar, In Front Of Sarkand Thana, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 10 - Vipin Kujur S/o Shri Nicolas Kujur Aged About 34 Years C/o Rajkumar Yadav, Near Sheetlamata Mandir, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001

--- Respondent(s) WPS No. 10293 of 2025 1 - Rajendra Yaduwanshi S/o Shri D.P. Yaduwanshi Aged About 56 Years Ro Sriram Chowk, Teekrapara, Raipur, (C.G.) 492001

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 20 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492001 6 - Zonal Accounts Officer Ayakar Bhawan Hosangabad Road Opposite Maida Mill Bhopal (M.P.) Pin No. 462011 7 - Ram Narayan Soni S/o Shri Late Atma Ram Soni Aged About 61 Years R/o Nathpara Subash Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 492002

--- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate and Ms. Rameshwari Kumari, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh and Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocates For Private : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate Respondents (Division Bench) (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) CAV Order 07.04.2026 Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in the present batch of writ petitions are substantially identical, all the matters were heard analogously with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the petitions have been classified into two distinct categories. The first category comprises those employees who were applicants in the Original Application and, though they had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, continue to remain in service. The second category consists of those employees who were also part of the Original Application, had not completed 10 years of service as on the said date, and whose services were subsequently terminated abruptly.

This classification has been made to appropriately address the nuances in their respective claims while adjudicating the common issues involved in the present proceedings.

3. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners assailing the common order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, whereby their respective Original Applications were dismissed. The petitioners, who were engaged as daily wage employees on various posts such as Peon, Farrash, Sweeper, Waterman, Chowkidar, and others between the years 1997 to 2008, contend that despite long years of continuous service and repeated recommendations made by the department for their regularization, the respondents, instead of regularizing their services, issued orders dated 04.07.2011 and 25.07.2011 introducing outsourcing of services, followed by instructions dated 14.03.2012 for shifting existing daily wage employees to a contractual employment system through outsourcing agencies. Aggrieved by the said 22 policy decision and consequential actions, the petitioners, along with other similarly situated employees, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing various Original Applications, seeking quashment of the outsourcing policy and a direction for regularization of their services in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, as well as on the ground that similarly situated employees in other regions had been granted regularization.

However, all such Original Applications came to be dismissed by a common order dated 11.10.2013. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal as well as the policy decisions dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011, and 14.03.2012, contending that they are entitled to regularization from the date they became eligible, and that the subsequent action of shifting them to a contractual/outsourcing system is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. It is their case that such subsequent developments ought to be treated as non est in the eyes of law.

4. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the reliefs sought in Writ Petition (S) No. 7027 of 2021 are taken as the common reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all the connected matters, as the nature of grievances and the reliefs claimed therein are substantially identical across the present batch of petitions. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :

"10.1 To call records pertaining to Original Application (O.A.) No. 443/2012 decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur;

10.2 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No. 443/2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur [ANNEXURE P-1);

10.3 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash orders dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and instruction dated 14.03.2012 [ANNEXURE P-2) for shifting the daily wagers (petitioners) to contractual employment system;

10.4 To grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice."

5. The facts, as pleaded in the present bunch of petitions, reveal that all the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees in the respondent-Income Tax department on different dates, 24 against Class-IV posts such. It is the consistent case of the petitioners that they continuously discharged their duties for long durations ranging from more than a decade to over fifteen years, thereby rendering uninterrupted and satisfactory service to the department. During the course of their engagement, the respondent authorities, on several occasions, acknowledged the services of the petitioners and even recommended their names for regularization. In particular, reliance has been placed on recommendation orders dated 24.01.2011, which, according to the petitioners, demonstrate a legitimate expectation for regularization of their services. It is further the common grievance of the petitioners that in the year 2011-2012, the respondent department initiated a policy shift by issuing orders dated 04.07.2011 and 25.07.2011, whereby services such as data entry, typing, cleaning, and security were directed to be outsourced through contractual agencies instead of engaging individual daily wage workers. This was followed by a subsequent instruction dated 14.03.2012 mandating the transition of existing daily wage workers, including the petitioners, into a contractual employment system through outsourcing agencies. The petitioners contend that the aforesaid policy decisions were arbitrary, illegal, and detrimental to their service conditions, as they effectively deprived them of any opportunity for regularization despite long years of service. Aggrieved by the said orders and instructions, the petitioners, along with similarly situated employees, approached 25 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, by filing Original Applications, challenging the validity of the outsourcing policy and seeking directions for regularization of their services.

However, the Tribunal, by a common order dated 11.10.2013, dismissed the said applications along with other connected matters. The petitioners assert that despite dismissal of their claims by the Tribunal, they did not abandon their demand for regularization and continued to assert that the shift to a contractual employment system through outsourcing agencies was illegal and arbitrary. It is the further case of the petitioners that, pursuant to the aforesaid policy, they were compelled to work under contractors appointed by the respondent department, albeit under protest. While some of the petitioners continued in such contractual arrangements for several years, others were subjected to adverse consequences. In certain cases forming part of the present bunch, it is alleged that the petitioners were orally and illegally terminated from service around April 2017, without issuance of any formal order or adherence to due process of law.

Such termination, according to the petitioners, was punitive in nature and a direct consequence of their resistance to the outsourcing policy and their continued demand for regularization.

Following their alleged termination, the affected petitioners raised industrial disputes under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the appropriate Government under Section 12 of the Act; however, 26 the same culminated in failure reports dated 20.06.2018.

Consequently, references were made under Section 10 of the Act for adjudication of the disputes. The petitioners maintain that even during this period, they consistently pursued their claim for regularization, asserting that their long and continuous service entitled them to such consideration. It has also been brought on record that certain similarly situated employees, who were parties to the earlier proceedings before the CAT, have challenged the Tribunal's order dated 11.10.2013 before the High Court of M.P. and Chhattisgarh and thereafter, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and such proceedings are stated to be pending consideration.

6. Thus, across the present group of writ petitions, the common factual matrix discloses a uniform grievance arising out of long-term engagement of the petitioners as daily wage employees, recommendations made for their regularization, subsequent introduction of an outsourcing policy replacing such engagement with contractual employment, dismissal of their challenge by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and continued assertion of their right to regularization, coupled with allegations of illegal termination in certain cases. The petitioners, therefore, filed these writ petitions before this Court on the basis of the aforesaid common set of facts and grievances.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, at the outset, that the petitioners have been continuously engaged by the respondent department between the years 1997 and 2008 on daily wage 27 basis for performing essential and perennial duties such as Waterman, Sweeper, Farash and Peon, which are indispensable for the day-to-day functioning of the department. It is contended that this foundational fact is not even disputed by the respondents in their reply, particularly in paragraph nos. 2 and 3, thereby establishing that the petitioners were not engaged for any sporadic or temporary work but were discharging regular and continuous functions akin to those performed by regular employees. It is further submitted that despite extracting work of permanent nature for long years, the respondent department deliberately chose not to regularize the services of the petitioners and, instead, in the year 2013, compelled them to work through outsourcing agencies, thereby perpetuating their precarious employment and denying them legitimate service benefits. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, by filing Original Applications in the years 2011 and 2012 seeking regularization of their services. However, the Tribunal vide common order dated 11.10.2013 dismissed their claims solely on the ground that the petitioners had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006, as contemplated in paragraph 53 of the judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. It is submitted that the said reasoning of the Tribunal is now no longer sustainable in view of subsequent authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have clarified and expanded the scope of 28 regularization, particularly in cases involving long-serving employees engaged in irregular, but not illegal, appointments.

Elaborating further, the learned counsel places strong reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court has categorically set aside a similar order passed by the Tribunal and directed regularization of similarly situated employees, even though they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. It is submitted that the present petitioners stand on identical footing and, therefore, are entitled to the same relief. The learned counsel further submits that the benefit of such judgment cannot be denied to the present petitioners, particularly when they had already approached the Tribunal prior to the pronouncement of the said judgment, and thus cannot be treated as fence-sitters or persons seeking belated advantage. The learned counsel also relies upon the principle of parity as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, more specifically paragraph 22.1 thereof, to contend that when a set of employees similarly situated has been granted relief by the Court, all other identically placed employees are entitled to the same treatment. It is submitted that the present petitioners had already asserted their rights by filing Original Applications and, therefore, their case does not fall under any exception to the said principle. The denial of similar benefit would amount to hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the 29 Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a similar matter, has set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal in Smt. Jayanti Nihal vs. Union of India, relying upon the judgments in Ravi Verma vs. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Verma vs. Union of India, thereby granting relief to similarly placed employees. It is submitted that these judgments clearly demonstrate a consistent judicial approach towards granting regularization to long-serving employees who have been subjected to unfair labour practices by the State. On the issue of delay and laches, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be non-suited on this ground, as they had approached the Tribunal at the earliest point of time when they were in service. It is further submitted that even after dismissal of their Original Applications, the petitioners continued to work under the respondent department through outsourcing arrangements and were given oral assurances that their cases would be considered for regularization. The petitioners, therefore, never abandoned their claim and cannot be treated as having acquiesced to their status. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the observations made by the High Court in Ashok Kumar Verma vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that such petitioners cannot be categorized as fence-sitters merely because they could not pursue litigation continuously. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India has categorically held that long-

serving employees performing essential duties cannot be denied regularization on technical grounds, and that the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case have often been misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims. It is submitted that the Apex Court has drawn a clear distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and has held that employees in irregular appointments, who have rendered long years of service, deserve to be regularized. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners' appointments were, at best, irregular and not illegal, and therefore fall within the zone of consideration for regularization. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in Raman Kumar vs. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed creation of supernumerary posts for the purpose of regularization, thereby negating the contention of the State regarding non-availability of sanctioned posts. Similarly, in Jivanlal vs. Pravin Kishan, the Apex Court has held that there cannot be a pick-and-choose policy in matters of regularization and that similarly situated employees must be treated alike. The learned counsel also places reliance on the recent judgment in Bholanath vs. State of Jharkhand, wherein it has been held that the State cannot rely upon contractual stipulations or the nomenclature of engagement to deny regularization after extracting work for long years, and that such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

8. It is submitted that the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the present case, where the petitioners have been continued 31 for decades and then subjected to outsourcing without any justification. On the issue of abrupt termination and its effect, the learned counsel submits that similarly situated employee, namely Naresh Kumar Yadav, who was terminated, was granted relief by the High Court and subsequently regularized by the department.

This clearly establishes that the respondent department itself has extended the benefit of regularization in identical circumstances, and denial of the same to the present petitioners would amount to discrimination. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petitions be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.

9. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the present writ petitions are wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. It is contended that the petitioners are seeking regularization of their services in complete disregard of the settled constitutional and legal principles governing public employment, as authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, which continues to hold the field as binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners do not fulfil the essential conditions for regularization as carved out in Uma Devi (supra) and 32 subsequently clarified in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari. It is submitted that the exception to the general rule against regularization is extremely limited and applies only where (i) the employee has completed ten years or more of continuous service as on 10.04.2006, (ii) such service was rendered against duly sanctioned posts, and (iii) the appointment was irregular but not illegal. The respondents submit that none of these conditions are satisfied in the present case. As per the undisputed record, the petitioners were engaged between 2002 and 2004 and, therefore, had not completed ten years of service as on the cut-off date i.e. 10.04.2006. Further, their engagement was not against any sanctioned posts and was purely casual in nature. Consequently, their appointments fall within the category of "illegal appointments"

as defined in Uma Devi (Supra), and thus are not amenable to regularization under any circumstances. The learned counsel further submits that the issue raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra, having already been adjudicated upon by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in Original Application and connected matters, which were dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2013. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the law laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) and M.L. Kesari (Supra), categorically held that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization as they had failed to meet the prescribed criteria.

The present writ petition is nothing but a collateral challenge to the said concluded adjudication, which cannot be permitted in law.

It is further submitted that the engagement of the petitioners was purely temporary and on daily wage basis, made to meet emergent and contingent requirements of the department, without following any recruitment rules or constitutional procedure. Such engagement was never intended to confer any right of permanency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (Supra) has unequivocally held that adherence to the constitutional scheme of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 is a basic feature of the Constitution, and any appointment made dehors the said scheme cannot be regularized by judicial fiat. The learned counsel emphasizes that mere continuance in service, even for a long duration, does not create any vested right to regularization, particularly when the initial engagement itself was not in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submits that the Government of India, through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), has issued clear and binding guidelines, including Office Memoranda dated 11.12.2006 and 07.10.2020, for implementation of the principles laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) and M.L. Kesari (Supra). These instructions categorically prohibit engagement of casual workers for work of regular nature and mandate that regularization can only be considered as a one-time measure for those who fulfil the strict criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the respondent department has duly complied with these directions and undertook the one-time exercise in the year 2011 to 34 consider eligible cases. Since the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility conditions, their cases were rightly not considered. The learned counsel also submits that the decision to outsource certain services in the year 2013 was taken in accordance with established governmental policy, financial prudence, and administrative efficiency. The same was in line with DoP&T guidelines and provisions of the General Financial Rules, and such policy decisions have consistently been upheld by Courts.

The petitioners, having accepted engagement through outsourcing agencies and continued to work under such arrangements for several years, cannot now turn around and challenge the same. The plea that they were working "under protest" is vague, unsubstantiated, and devoid of any legal consequence. Responding to the reliance placed by the petitioners on subsequent judgments such as Pawan Kumar (Supra), Ravi Verma (Supra), Jaggo (Supra), and others, the learned counsel submits that none of these judgments dilute or override the binding ratio of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (Supra). It is a settled principle of judicial discipline that a judgment rendered by a larger bench prevails over decisions of smaller benches.

10. The learned counsel submits that the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi (Supra) lays down the governing principles on the issue of regularization, and any subsequent decision must be read in conformity with the said binding 35 precedent. The petitioners cannot selectively rely on later judgments to circumvent the clear mandate of Uma Devi (Supra).

The learned counsel further contends that the petitioners' argument based on Articles 14 and 16 is misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that there can be no equality in illegality, and a claim for parity cannot be founded on instances where others may have been granted relief erroneously or under different factual circumstances. Similarly, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is wholly inapplicable in the present case, as the petitioners were fully aware of the temporary and casual nature of their engagement at the time of acceptance, and no promise of regularization was ever extended by the respondents. It is also submitted that the allegation of abrupt termination is factually incorrect. Since the year 2013, the petitioners were engaged through service providers, and any discontinuation of their services was effected by such agencies in terms of contractual arrangements. The petitioners were never employees of the respondent department in the legal sense and, therefore, cannot claim any right against the respondents. The learned counsel further emphasizes that the constitutional scheme does not envisage regularization as a mode of recruitment. Any direction to regularize the petitioners would amount to bypassing the established recruitment process, thereby depriving other eligible candidates of their right to compete for public employment. Such a course would be in direct violation of 36 Articles 14 and 16 and contrary to the rule of law. In conclusion, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right for regularization. Their engagement being purely casual, not against sanctioned posts, and not in conformity with the constitutional scheme, disentitles them from any relief. The present petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit, barred by settled principles of law, and amounting to an impermissible attempt to reopen issues already adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Finding and Decision on First Category i.e. employees who continue to remain in service

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings, documents and material available on record, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the present batch of petitions, in so far as they relate to the first category of petitioners, namely those who, though they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006, are continuing in service till date, either directly or through outsourcing arrangements.

12. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged between the years 1997 to 2008 and have been discharging duties of perennial and essential nature such as Peon, Farrash, Sweeper, Chowkidar, Waterman, etc. It is also an admitted position that most of the petitioners are still working, albeit under 37 changed nomenclature or through outsourcing agencies. The continuity of service, the nature of duties performed, and the necessity of such work for the functioning of the department stand established from the record. The principal ground on which the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners was their failure to complete ten years of service as on 10.04.2006, as contemplated in paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

13. The issue, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether such a rigid application of the cut-off date still holds the field in light of subsequent judicial pronouncements. This Court is conscious of the law laid down in Uma Devi (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment and carved out a one-time exception for those who had completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 in duly sanctioned posts. However, the evolution of law post Uma Devi demonstrates that the said judgment has been clarified, explained and distinguished in several later decisions, particularly in cases where employees have rendered long and continuous service in irregular, but not illegal, appointments.

14. In State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the benefit of regularization is not to be denied on hyper-technical grounds and that the one-

time exercise contemplated in Uma Devi must be applied in a 38 pragmatic manner. The Court emphasized that if employees have continued for long years and the State has taken work from them, the authorities are under an obligation to consider their cases fairly. It was held as under :

"5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. 22 Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.

6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below:

"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], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] 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 regularization 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 abovereferred 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 40 regularize 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...."

7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.

Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts 41 or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).

9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective.

This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage 42 or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services."

15. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 supports the case of the petitioners in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:

"13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced 43 one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.

Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.

In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the 44 same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished 45 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..."

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of 46 backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal"

and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.

This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."

16. In addition, in Pawan Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue of regularization, has considered and distinguished the law laid down in Uma Devi and has granted relief to similarly situated employees, even though they did not strictly fulfil the condition of ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. The said judgment clearly indicates that Uma Devi cannot be applied in a mechanical or pedantic manner so as to defeat the legitimate claims of employees who have rendered long and continuous service. It was held thus :

"4. According to the Income Tax Department, the services of the appellants are not liable to be regularized since their eligibility in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra) of having rendered continuous service for ten years or more as on 10.04.2006 was not satisfied by them. In absence of any sanctioned post available at Gwalior, their services were not liable to be regularized. The engagement of the appellants was merely of a casual nature and their services were subsequently being engaged through a contractor on contractual basis. It is, thus, the case of the Income Tax Department that the Tribunal and thereafter, the High Court having rightly denied relief to the 48 appellants, there was no reason to interfere with that adjudication.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have also perused the documents on record.

Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the view that the services of the appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, whose services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed by this Court."

17. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a similar matter of Jayanti Nihal vs. Union of India and Others passed in Misc. Petition No. 5182/2025 vide order dated 17.11.2025, considered and allowed claim for regularization while setting aside order dated 11.10.2013 passed by C.A.T. in O. A. No. 713/2011.

18. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid judgments is that where

(i) the employees have rendered long and continuous service, (ii) their appointments are not illegal but at best irregular, (iii) the work performed is of perennial nature, and (iv) similarly situated employees have already been granted relief by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, denial of regularization would amount to hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

19. The undisputed factual position which emerges from the pleadings 49 is that the petitioners were engaged between the years 1997 to 2008 and have continuously discharged duties of perennial and indispensable nature, such as Peon, Farrash, Sweeper, Chowkidar, Waterman, etc. It is equally not in dispute that the work performed by them has not ceased; rather, the same continues even today, albeit under the guise of outsourcing. The continuity of work and the necessity of such functions for the day-

to-day functioning of the department stand conclusively established.

20. The sole ground on which the claim of the petitioners came to be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal was that they had not completed ten years of service as on the cut-off date i.e. 10.04.2006, as contemplated in paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi (Supra). The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether such a rigid and mechanical application of the said cut-off date can be sustained in law, particularly in light of subsequent judicial pronouncements.

21. This Court is conscious of the binding nature of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), which laid down that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment and carved out a limited one-time exception. However, it would be an incomplete reading of the said judgment to treat the cut-off date of ten years as an inflexible and absolute bar, divorced from the factual realities of each case. The subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (Supra), has authoritatively clarified that the one-time 50 exercise contemplated in Uma Devi is to be applied in a pragmatic and purposive manner. The Court emphasized that the benefit of regularization cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds, particularly where employees have been continued for long years and the State has taken work from them without interruption. The underlying principle is one of fairness and non-arbitrariness in State action.

22. The jurisprudence which has evolved thereafter clearly demonstrates that the emphasis has shifted from a rigid cut-off approach to a more equitable consideration of long and continuous service.

23. In the present case, the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the initial engagement of the petitioners was tainted by illegality in the sense of being contrary to statutory provisions or vitiated by fraud. At best, the appointments can be termed as "irregular", having been made without following the full rigour of recruitment rules. Such appointments, as recognized in Uma Devi itself, fall within the permissible zone for consideration of regularization. The reliance placed by the respondents on the non-fulfilment of the ten-year condition as on 10.04.2006, therefore, cannot be accepted as a determinative factor. The said requirement cannot be read in isolation so as to defeat the substantive rights which have accrued to the petitioners by virtue of their long and continuous service extending over decades.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the recent decision in Pawan 51 Kumar (Supra), has categorically held that even where employees did not strictly satisfy the condition of ten years of service as on 10.04.2006, they cannot be denied regularization if they are otherwise similarly situated and have rendered long service. The Court, in unmistakable terms, rejected the mechanical application of Uma Devi (supra) and granted relief to such employees. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioners herein stand on identical footing, having rendered long years of service and having been subjected to the same policy of outsourcing instead of being regularized.

25. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners have accepted outsourcing arrangements and are therefore disentitled to relief is devoid of merit. The material on record indicates that such arrangements were imposed upon the petitioners, leaving them with no real choice but to continue working in order to sustain their livelihood. Acceptance under compulsion cannot be equated with waiver of constitutional rights. Equally untenable is the argument that the petitioners do not hold any sanctioned posts.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cases involving similarly situated persons, has passed orders directing regularization of services.

Further, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as this Court have also passed orders in line with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby allowing the prayer for 52 regularization in analogous matters.

27. Another significant aspect which cannot be ignored is that the respondent department itself had recommended the names of the petitioners for regularization, as evident from the documents placed on record, particularly the recommendation dated 24.01.2011. Such recommendation gives rise to a legitimate expectation that their cases would be considered fairly and not rejected on technical grounds. The action of the respondents in introducing an outsourcing policy, despite the existence of long-

serving employees performing the same duties, also appears to be arbitrary. As observed in Jaggo (supra), outsourcing of perennial work after disengaging existing workers only reinforces the fact that the work is of a permanent nature and cannot be treated as casual or temporary.

28. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that the ground of non-completion of ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 cannot, by itself, be a valid or sustainable ground to deny regularization to the petitioners, particularly when they have rendered considerable length of continuous service, their appointments are not illegal, and the work performed by them is of perennial nature. The approach adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in rejecting the claims of the petitioners solely on the basis of the aforesaid cut-off date is, therefore, found to be overly technical, mechanical, and contrary to the evolved principles of law laid 53 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioners belonging to the first category are entitled to consideration for regularization of their services, notwithstanding the fact that they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006.

Finding and Decision on Second Category i.e. Employees Whose Services Were Abruptly Terminated

30. This Court now proceeds to examine the case of the second category of petitioners, namely those employees who were initially engaged in the same manner as the first category, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but whose services were subsequently terminated abruptly, in many cases without any written order, notice, or compliance with due process of law.

31. At the outset, it must be stated that the mere dismissal of the Original Applications by the Tribunal cannot operate as an absolute bar to the grant of relief in the present writ petitions, particularly when the legal position has undergone substantial evolution thereafter and when the impugned action of termination itself gives rise to a fresh and independent cause of action.

32. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is that since the petitioners had already approached the Tribunal 54 and their claims stood rejected vide order dated 11.10.2013, the issue has attained finality. This submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that dismissal of earlier proceedings does not preclude reconsideration where (i) subsequent events have occurred, (ii) law has evolved, or (iii) the cause of action is recurring or continuous in nature. In the present case, all three conditions stand satisfied, particularly in view of the subsequent judgments in Ravi Verma, Raman Kumar, and Pawan Kumar, which have substantially clarified and expanded the scope of regularization beyond the rigid interpretation adopted earlier.

33. More importantly, the claim of the petitioners in this category is not merely for regularization simpliciter, but is also founded upon the illegality of their abrupt termination, which is alleged to have been carried out orally and without adherence to any procedure known to law. In this regard, the law is well settled that termination of long-serving employees without due process is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Even in cases of temporary or daily wage employees, the State is not absolved of its obligation to act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law.

34. In Ravi Verma vs. Union of India, (2018 SCC OnLine SC 3860), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an identical situation where the claims of employees had been rejected by the 55 Tribunal as well as the High Court, set aside both the orders and granted regularization, holding that denial of such benefit despite long years of service amounted to discrimination. The Court observed:

13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and regularization of the similarly situated employees at other places and various recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006;

discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under the cover of court's order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services.

14. We direct that the services of the appellants be regularised w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with the order in a period of three months from today.

15. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the CAT are set aside. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent."

35. The aforesaid judgment is of direct relevance, as it unequivocally demonstrates that an order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim does not foreclose the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant appropriate relief where injustice is demonstrated.

36. The principle has been reiterated in Raman Kumar vs. Union of India, (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1018), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following Ravi Verma, extended the benefit of regularization to similarly situated employees and held that selective denial of regularization is violative of Article 14. It was held:

"8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed service of more than ten years. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

37. This judgment clearly reinforces that substantive rights cannot be defeated merely on the basis of earlier adjudication, particularly when parity and equality principles are attracted.

38. Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the 57 doctrine of parity and non-discrimination, holding that once relief is granted to one set of employees, the same cannot be denied to others identically situated. The relevant principle are extracted as under :

"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."

39. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Jayanti Nihal vs. Union of India and Others passed in Misc. Petiton No. 5182 vide order dated 17.11.2025, the Division Bench has held as under :

"1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure 58 P-1) passed in O.A No. 713/2011, whereby bunch of O.As were dismissed.

2. Arising out of the same common order, some of the applicants have approached this Court by M.P No. 1626/2024 (Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India), M.P No. 1627/2024 (Krishna Swamy Vs. Union of India), M.P No. 1660/2024 (Shatrughan Mahanand & others Vs. Union of India) and M.P No. 1541/2015 (Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India & others). Vide order dated 31st July, 2025 (Annexure P-5), this Court has allowed the miscellaneous petitions by directing the respondents to grant the same benefit as has been granted by the Apex Court in case of Ravi Verma & others Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 2795-

2796 of 2018 (Annexure P-3);

therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed in O.A No. 713/2011 is set aside. The order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2795- 2796 of 2018 (Ravi Verma & others Vs. Union of India) shall also apply mutatis mutandis in the present petition."

40. Further in the matter of Ashok Kumar Verma vs. Union of India, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed in Misc. Petition No. 1626 of 2024, has held as under :

"10. The next judgment of the Supreme Court that has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157/2024) with specific reference to para no.14 where, the Supreme Court expressing its views on the employers reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi whereby a stand was taken that the daily wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules, the Supreme Court held that Umadevi's judgment distinguishes between appointments that are illegal and those which are irregular and went on to elucidate that those appointments which are irregular were eligible for regularization if they met certain conditions. More importantly, the Supreme Court held "Umadevi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploited engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. The view taken by the Supreme Court assumes great 60 importance in the Indian society when the State appoints persons on temporary basis in order to oversee temporary. exigencies, but, which the Supreme Court has observed, can take on exploitative forms also. Therefore, in view of what has been argued before this Court and considered as hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that though there is a delay of almost 11 or 12 years from the date on which their original application before the Tribunal was dismissed, the petitioners had at least exercised their rights to seek relief would demonstrate that they had never acquiesced to their status of temporary employment as daily wagers and did desire regularization. Their inability to go further up does not make them fence-sitters as those would fall in the category of persons who do not even embark upon the first step in the journey of seeking their rights before Courts and Tribunals and merely watch for a long period to those who are similarly placed and then try to ride piggy-back on those who get relief after a long-drawn legal battle."

41. Aforesaid principle makes it abundantly clear that similarly situated persons cannot be denied relief merely because they 61 were not successful earlier or did not obtain relief at that stage.

Applying the aforesaid principle, the petitioners in the present category, who had already approached the Tribunal, stand on an even stronger footing and cannot be treated as fence-sitters or disentitled persons.

42. This Court also finds considerable force in the submission that the termination of the petitioners was not only illegal but also arbitrary, inasmuch as it was effected without issuance of any written order, no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted, and the work itself continued, albeit through outsourcing agencies. Such action, in effect, amounts to replacing one set of workers with another, which has been expressly frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

43. In Jaggo (Supra), the Apex Court held in paragraphs 13 and 21 that outsourcing the same work after termination of existing workers establishes that the work is perennial... and denial of regularization in such cases is contrary to fairness and equity.

44. The factual matrix in the present case clearly reveals that the petitioners had rendered long and continuous service, their work was perennial and indispensable, their names were recommended for regularization, and they were subsequently terminated to facilitate outsourcing. Such a course of action, in the considered view of this Court, amounts to an unfair labour 62 practice and cannot be sustained in law.

45. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners were not employees of the department post outsourcing is equally untenable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the State cannot evade its constitutional obligations by resorting to contractual or outsourcing mechanisms, particularly when the underlying work and control remain with the department.

46. Another significant aspect which weighs with this Court is that similarly situated employees, including one Naresh Kumar Yadav, have already been granted relief and regularized. Once such benefit has been extended, denial of the same to the present petitioners would amount to hostile discrimination, which is impermissible under Article 14.

47. The argument that the petitioners are not entitled to relief due to dismissal of their Original Applications also overlooks the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide and equitable, and can be exercised to remedy injustice, particularly where the earlier adjudication is shown to be based on an outdated or narrow interpretation of law, and subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have clarified the legal position.

48. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered 63 opinion that the dismissal of the Original Applications by the Tribunal does not extinguish the petitioners' right to seek regularization, the subsequent termination of their services gives rise to an independent and continuing cause of action, and the petitioners cannot be denied relief merely on technical or procedural grounds when substantive injustice is evident.

49. Consequently, this Court holds that the petitioners belonging to the second category, i.e., those whose services were abruptly terminated are entitled to parity with similarly situated employees, cannot be denied consideration for regularization merely on account of dismissal of their Original Applications, and are further entitled to relief on account of the illegality and arbitrariness of their termination.

50. The action of the respondents in terminating the services of such petitioners, while continuing the same work through outsourcing agencies and while granting regularization to similarly situated employees, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore cannot be sustained.

51. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in so far as they relate to the present category of petitioners, are held to be unsustainable in law, being based on a mechanical application of the judgment in Uma Devi without 64 taking into account the subsequent evolution of law and the factual realities of the case.

52. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioners in the second category stand on no lesser footing than those who have continued in service, and their claim for regularization deserves to be considered on merits, ignoring the technical objection arising out of dismissal of their Original Applications.

Conclusion :

53. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court arrives at a considered and unequivocal conclusion that the impugned common order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the same proceeds on an unduly rigid and mechanical application of the principles laid down in Uma Devi (supra), without appreciating the subsequent evolution of law and the factual realities of the present case. The Tribunal has failed to take into account the long, continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners, the perennial nature of duties discharged by them, the recommendations made by the department itself for their regularization, and the subsequent authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have clarified that the doctrine laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) cannot be applied in a manner so as to perpetuate 65 injustice or defeat legitimate claims of employees engaged in irregular, but not illegal, appointments.

54. So far as the first category of petitioners, namely those who continue in service, is concerned, this Court holds that their claim for regularization cannot be defeated solely on the ground that they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006.

The material on record clearly establishes that they have rendered long years of continuous service extending over decades, are performing duties of a permanent and perennial nature, and their engagement, at best, suffers from procedural irregularity rather than illegality. The subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently emphasized that such employees are entitled to fair and equitable consideration for regularization and cannot be denied such benefit on hyper-

technical grounds. Accordingly, the petitioners in this category are held entitled to be considered for regularization, and the respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for regularization of their services in a time-bound manner, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in later decisions, and without being constrained by the rigid cut-off date of 10.04.2006.

55. In respect of the second category of petitioners, namely those whose services were abruptly terminated, this Court finds that their case stands on an even stronger footing. The termination of 66 their services, in many instances without written orders, notice, or adherence to due process, is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such action, coupled with the fact that the same work has been continued through outsourcing agencies, clearly establishes an unfair and discriminatory practice on the part of the respondents.

Furthermore, the dismissal of their Original Applications by the Tribunal does not operate as a bar to grant of relief in the present proceedings, particularly in light of subsequent judicial developments and the continuing nature of the cause of action.

The principles of parity and non-discrimination, as consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mandate that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently. Consequently, the petitioners in the second category are also held entitled to relief. The action of the respondents in terminating their services is hereby declared illegal and unsustainable, and the respondents are directed to reinstate such petitioners (wherever not already reinstated) and to consider their cases for regularization on the same footing as the petitioners who have continued in service.

Such consideration shall be undertaken expeditiously and in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove.

56. In culmination, therefore, both categories of petitioners are held entitled to succeed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2013 67 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside.

The policy decisions dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 14.03.2012, to the extent they adversely affect the rights of the present petitioners and operate to deny them fair consideration for regularization, are also held to be arbitrary and unsustainable in their application to the present case.

57. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand allowed, with the aforesaid directions.

No order as to costs.

                       Sd/-                            Sd/-
           (Sanjay S. Agrawal)                (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
                 Judge                                   Judge
Shayna
                               68




                          HEAD - NOTE

Termination of the petitioners' services, while continuing the same work through outsourcing agencies and granting regularization to similarly situated employees, is arbitrary and discriminatory. Such action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is therefore unsustainable in law.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court

Ravi Shripal vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2026