Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs M/O Finance on 15 April, 2025
1
290/00332/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00332/2018
Reserved on : 27.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Late Shri Amar Singh Tak, Aged
about 38 years, R/o Plot No. 95A, Niyala Bera, Magra
Punjala, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Shilendra Singh Shankhla S/o Shri Surendra Singh
Sankhla, R/o Manak Chowk, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Mahendra Gurjar S/o late Shri Kishan Lal Gurjar, R/o Plot
No. 173, Sardarpura 1st C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Raju S/o Late Shri Bhanwar lal, R/o Plot No. 29, Shankar
nagar, Sangaria Fata, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Indra Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Babu Singh Chouhan, R/o
Maderana Colony, Near Kalka Mata Mandir, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Rajendra Gurjar S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Gurjar, R/o Plot
No. 173, Sardarpura 1st 'C' Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(All the applicants are working on the post of casual labour in
the office of respondent No. 3)
......Applicant
By Advocate : Mr S.P. Singh.
2
290/00332/2018
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi
(110001).
2. Additional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central
Revenue Buidling Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
(302006).
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Paota "C" Road,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) (342006).
......Respondents
By Advocate : Mr Sunil Bhandari.
ORDER
By way of filing the instant OA, the applicants are seeking direction against the respondents to regularize their services on the post of Group 'D' pursuant to circular dated 23.01.2018 (Annex. A/13) whereby Department of Revenue, Govt of India asked all Cadre Controlling Authorities of CBEC details of CL-TS (Casual Labour Temporary Status) covered under the DoPT's Scheme of 1993, DoPT's OM dated 11.12.2006 as also on the lines of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka And ...vs Uma Devi & Ors, 2006 (4) SCC 1 whose services could not be regularised either due to non- availability of posts in the grade of MTS or otherwise. They also prayed that respondents may be restrained from terminating their services on ground of filing of this matter.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-
3290/00332/2018 2.1 The applicants were engaged as casual labour in the year 1997 under respondent No. 2 & No. 3. As per the case of the applicants, they were working against the sanctioned Group 'D' post in the respondent department since 1997. Aggrieved with not considering the case for regularization, the applicants No. 1 to 4 & 6 filed OA No. 201/2009 before this bench with the averment that these applicants are in service as casual employees for last more than 10 years continuously without intervention of the orders of the Court or Tribunal. The respondent-department initiated the process for regularization of casual workers serving for 10 years or more continuously while implementing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). With these averments, the applicants sought direction against the respondents to regularize their services on Group-D post and to treat the applicants as a class having completed 10 years continuous service as casual labour to be considered in consonance with scheme framed for implementation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The respondents while filing reply to the OA No. 201/2009 stated that decision of regularisation of part time employees is a policy decision and this Hon'ble Tribunal would not like to interfere in such policy decision.
2.2 After referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors vs Daya Ram Saroj & Ors, (2007) 2 SCC 138, the OA No. 201/2009 was disposed of vide oral order dated 23.03.2011 in following terms:-
(i) while regularizing employee the full-time employee shall be given preference.4
290/00332/2018
(ii) The part time employees and labourers who are being considered shall only be considered if the list of full-time employees who are competent to be considered on the ground of Uma Devi's judgment is exhausted.
2.3 Thereafter, the applicants of OA No. 201/2009 as also applicant No. 5 herein, joined other two casual labour in filing OA No. 17/2012 before this bench. That OA, along with other OAs, was disposed of by this tribunal on 29.10.2012. Record reveals that when the respondents invited tenders from service providers to supply personnel to serve as Peon, Chowkidar, Safai Karmacheri and Data Entry operator, some employees engaged on casual basis approached this tribunal by way of filing OAs to have a direction for not removing them from service and further to regularise their services. However, during the course of the hearing of these OAs, the claim for regularization in service was not pressed upon. This tribunal disposed of these OAs on 29.10.2012 with following directions:
(i) Such employees who continued to be on the rolls of the respondent organization should be allowed to mark their attendance and they may continue discharging their duties till a decision on the subject by the Hon'ble High Court.
(ii) Those employees who willingly wish to join to avail of the employment through the contractors/service providers may be given the first preference in doing so.
(iii) This, however, should not become a pretext for disengaging all the daily wages/casual employees and no coercion should be exercised in this matter by the respondents.
2.4 In the instant OA, the applicants have not clarified whether in OA No. 17/2012, the applicants initially made any prayer for regularization and then not pressed the same during the arguments. Though after going through the order dated 5 290/00332/2018 29.10.2012, it appears that the issue of regularization was also raised but not pressed upon. Rather, the applicants emphasized upon their continuing in service restraining the respondents from replacing them by manpower being outsourced through contractors.
2.5 Referring DoP&T OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt.(C) dated 7th June, 1988 (Annex. A/1), it is the case of the applicants that they are being treated in an arbitrary manner by the respondents and even having regular work against the sanctioned posts, the persons are employed on a casual basis and no review as per OM Dated 07.06.1988 has been carried out. The respondents ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) was pleased to protect those contractual employees who had rendered more than 10 years' service by directing the respondents to initiate the exercise of regularizing the service where such long service is without the intervention of the Hon'ble Court. It is averred that the applicants have been engaged as casual labour for more than 20 years in the respondent department and are rendering the same kind of service to that of regular employee. The applicants are being paid a meagre amount of Rs 642/- per day and it is very difficult for them to make their both ends meet unless their services are regularized by the direction of this Court. The applicants have placed reliance upon the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by CAT Jaipur Bench in OA No. 1846/2013 [Kamal & Ors v. Secretary to the Department of Revenue, MoF] as also decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of Jharkhand, 2018 (8) SCC 238.
6290/00332/2018 2.6. During course of arguments, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court :
(i) Jaggo.. vs Union of India & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
(ii) Vinod Kumar & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors, 2024 SCC 327.
(iii)Union of India & Ors vs. Sudip Biswas & Ors, SLP (C) No. 12465- 12646/2021.
(iv) Basudeb Debnath & Ors vs Union of India & Ors, WP(C) No. 1162/2018 before High Court of Tripura Agartala decided on 09.03.2021 In the matter of Jaggo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the termination order of the appellants and directed the department to take them on duty and also regularize their services. In para 26 of that judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of 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.
It is pertinent to note that in that case, the appellants established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable 7 290/00332/2018 roles were regularized by the respondents. The appellants in that case also submitted particulars of Multi-Tasking Staff who were part of the staff without the required educational qualification also. After citing the data in tabular form in para 18 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows that preferential treatment has been accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. That exemplified discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent department's approach and such disparity violated the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and could not be sustained in law.
In the matter of Vinod Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to be considered for regularization against their respective post.
In the matter of Basudeb Debnath (supra), the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to form a committee to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and directed that petitioners should fulfil following conditions:-
"19. Under the circumstances, petitions are disposed of with following directions:
(a) The respondents shall form a committee to consider the cases of all the petitioners for regularization. Those petitioners who fulfill the following conditions shall be regularized:
(i) Those petitioners who held necessary educational qualifications at the time of their initial engagement;
(ii) They had completed more than 10 years of engagement before the High Court for the first time granted them protection against termination; Such regularization shall be from the date of this judgement;8
290/00332/2018
(b) None of the petitioners shall be disengaged for outsourcing the work. However, it would be open for the department to make appointments on regular basis upon which the concerned petitioners, if not qualified for regularization, shall have to vacate the place. It may also be open for the department to abolish the posts and in such eventuality disengagement can take place by following the principle of last come first go;
(c) Till any of these petitioners are regularized and till those petitioners who do not qualify for regularization but continue to be engaged in the same capacity, they shall be paid daily wages at the minimum scale of pay prescribed for the post in question without attendant allowances;
(d) The revised wages shall be paid from the date of the judgment;
(e) The exercise for regularization shall be completed within six months from today."
3. While relying upon the above judgments, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the applicants are rendering services in the respondent-department continuously for long, directions be issued to regularize his service in light of above judgments.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Secretary, State of Karnataka And ...vs Uma Devi & Ors,2006 (4) SCC 1;
(ii) State of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 429;
(iii) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Anr, (2005) 2 SCC 673;
(iv) Hanuman Singh & Ors vs Board of Revenue & Ors, AIR 2002 Raj 365;
(v) Kamlesh Kumawat & Ors vs Union of India & Ors, this bench OA No. 262/2020 & connected matters decided on 06.12.2024.
While relying upon the above judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the matter of Kamlesh Kumawat & Ors along with other connected OAs (supra) filed before this bench, this bench disposed of these matters by a common order dated 06.12.2024, wherein, while discussing judgments cited by 9 290/00332/2018 learned counsel for the applicant except the judgment in the matter of Jaggo (supra) which was passed later on, this tribunal rejected the prayer of the applicants for regularization. He submits that the present controversy is squarely covered by the above judgment passed by this bench and there is no reason to deviate from the same.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, this tribunal is of the opinion that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the matter of Uma Devi (supra) still holds the field, therefore, has binding force while deciding the controversy involved in this matter.
In the matter of Jaggo (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since after noting glaring indiscrimination in appointing the employees in the department, the Hon'ble Court observed that preferential treatment given to some individuals who were having shorter service duration and having no qualification were given appointment ignoring the claim of the petitioners whose claim was better in comparison to the persons got appointment which is in violation of principles of equality before law.
Hence, the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra) cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The applicants not having fulfilled the criteria formulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi (supra) are not entitled for regularization. The applicants were neither appointed against sanctioned post nor they completed the period 10 290/00332/2018 of ten years regular service as on 10.04.2006, i.e. the date of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). Since the controversy raised by the applicants in the present matter is identical to that raised in OA No. 260/2020 & connected matters, it is proposed to decide this OA on similar lines without assigning separate reasons. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra) does not change the legal position for regularization who do not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Constitution Bench in the matter of Uma Devi (supra) (supra). The other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants have already been discussed by this bench in order dated 06.12.2024 passed in OA No. 262/2020 & connected matters. Since the applicants failed to fulfil the conditions made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi (supra), this tribunal is not in a position to issue any direction against the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant.
6. In view of above, OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Rameshwar Vyas) MEMBER (J) ss