Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Shri Pradyumna Dehury vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 25 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025
Reserved on 17.03.2026 Pronounced on 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Shri Pradyumna Dehury, aged about 44 years,
Son of Late Pareswar Dehury, a permanent
resident of Tumusingha, Dhenkanal at present
working as MTS on casual basis in the Office
of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(view), Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali,
Sambalpur.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its
Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Directorate General of Income
Tax (HRD), Ministry of Fiance, Governmnet of
India, 2nd Floor, Jawahar Nehru Stadium, Gate
No.1, New Delhi-110003.
3. Princpal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar-751007.
4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-I, Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali,
Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur, Pin-768004.
5. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (View),
Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Pin-
768004.
......Respondents
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.25
10:08:15 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025
For the applicant : M/s J.M.Pattnaik,
J.R.Behera Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. D.R.Swain, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
It is not in dispute that the applicant has been continuing to serve the department on casual basis uninterruptedly over more than two decades i.e. since 05.09.2000 till date and meanwhile became overaged to seek any employment in Government for sustenance of livelihood. Also, the respondents did not dispute the fact that 18 casual workers working in Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized vide order dated 04.03.2011 and 64 similar causal workers working under Lucknow Commissionerate were also regularized vide order No. 130 dated 17.02.2025 retrospectively w.e.f. 22.01.2010.
According to the applicant/Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is also entitled to regularization and all consequential servile and financial benefits retrospectively as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vrs. Union of RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025), Shripal and Anr. vrs.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129, Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, and Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 654/2015 dated 10.02.2026 in the case of Manoranjan Naik & Ors Vs UOI & Ors., in order to remove the injustice caused to him by way of discrimination, which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondents have filed their counter opposing and contesting the case of the applicant on the grounds that since the applicant is not a holder of civil post, OA filed by causal/daily wage employee before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to regularize is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble High Curt of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 4601/2003 in the case of Bhaskar Dora Vs UOI & Ors. The present case being one and the same, therefore, this Bench lacks RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 jurisdiction to entertain this OA and this OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The applicant was not engaged through any process of selection or his engagement was again any sanctioned post. The applicant was engaged on casual basis from 05.09.2000 and was receiving wages under head wages on continuous basis frm the office of the PCIT, Sambalpur upto 30.11.2021 and has been receiving wages from the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Verification Unit)-1(2), Cuttack from 01.12.2021 till date. It is stated that since, he did not complete 10 years of continuous engagement as on 10.04.2006 for which he was not regularized along with 18 causal labourers, who were regularized having completed 10 years continuous engagement on casual basis as on 10.04.2006 as per the order of the competent authority issued in compliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The engagement of the applicant was purely temporary in nature on payment of wages @ applicable from time to time. Thus, consistence performance over certain length of time does not RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 confer any right on him to claim regularization. It is stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has no application since the facts involved in the said case is different and distinguished to the case in hand.
3. After giving a thread bearing consideration to the points raised by the parties in course of hearing, we have perused the pleadings taken in the OA, counter, rejoinder so also short note filed by the applicant. We have also gone through the decisions and documents placed by the parties.
4. Since, the respondents raised the point of maintainability of this OA, we would like to deal the same at the first instance.
Respondents in their counter have placed reliance on the decision on the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhaskar Dora (supra) in support of the stand that the applicant being a casual employee, this OA is not maintainable before the CAT but no copy of such decision has been annexed in the counter nor has been produced in course of hearing. Be that as it may, we find that the Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications, questioned the very same point of RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 maintainability of Original Application before CAT filed under Section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 by casual employees seeking regularization before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb (2008 INSC
592). The Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining the very provision of the A.T. Act, 1985, grappled with the jurisdictional contention raised by the Department regarding CAT's authority.
It clarified that under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, CAT holds jurisdiction over various service matters, including those of casual employees. The employees, being classified as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had the right to approach CAT. The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' reliance on Section 28, which limits court jurisdictions, by asserting that Section 28 primarily safeguards Industrial Tribunal jurisdictions and does not exclude CAT's authority. Similar question once again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Awadhesh Singh -vs- Union of India and others in W.P No. 21119 (W) of 2011; wherein by placing reliance on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 provisions of A.T. Act, 1985 and several judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court including the one in the case of Keshab Deb (supra) have held that the CAT has jurisdiction to entertain and decide cases filed by casual employees seeking regularization in Civil Post. Thus, on the face of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Keshab Deb (supra), the stand taken by the Respondents in this case that the Applicant being a casual employee this OA filed by him is not maintainable before CAT is hereby overruled.
5. The next points of the respondents are that since the initial engagement of the applicant was not through process of selection and against any sanctioned post irrespective of his years of continuance, he is not to be entitled to be regularized are concerned, we find that the same and similar question also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh & Ors. (supra), Shripal and Anr. (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra) and, taking note of such contentions, the Hon'ble Apex Court issued positive/affirmative direction for regularization. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 in the case of Dharam Singh Vs State of UP, 2025 INSC 998 , after considering the earlier decisions in the matter of regularization rendered in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and in Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, decided the cases of regularization even for the persons engaged through outsourcing by observing/holding as under:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long- term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
12. We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in 21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
6. The above view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Bhola Nath (supra). Taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Manoranjan Naik issued affirmative direction to the respondents for their regularization.
7. Recently also, non-regularization of casual employees of the Income Tax department came up for consideration before the CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 719/2012 (Pawan Kumar & Ors Vs UOI & Ors), which was dismissed vide order dated RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 13.05.2015. the said order was challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 26.08.2019 upheld the order of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench. The applicants therein carried the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The decision rendered in the said case is reported in 2026 INSC 156 (Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India). The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted below:
8. It is also material to note that subsequently in the case of Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., this Court referred to the adjudication in the Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) and on 03.07.2023 directed regularization of services of the appellants therein. This was for the reason that the Income Tax Department could not have discriminated in the matter of regularizing the services of similarly situated employees.
On the same analogy, we find that the present appellants also being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated from the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.
9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the appellants 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 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 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 judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5, 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 same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 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 judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
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 backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 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."
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra). The High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra).
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from today."
8. From the tones of the decisions, it is established that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is in rem making it applicable RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 to all similarly situated employees, read with uncontrovertable fact that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. It establishes the doctrine of precedents (stare decisis), ensuring legal uniformity, consistency, and stability across all judicial levels. Also, 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly.
9. In view of the facts that the has been continuing to serve the departmental on casual basis over a period of two decades since 05.09.2000 till date uninterruptedly, and 18 such casual workers working in Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:08:15 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/000440 of 2025 regularized vide order dated 04.03.2011 and 64 similar causal workers working under Lucknow Commissionerate were also regularized vide order No. 130 dated 17.02.2025 retrospectively w.e.f. 22.01.2010, and law discussed above, the Applicant is entitled to be regularized with effect from the date others were regularized and the Respondents are hereby directed to do so and issue compliance order to the above effect granting the benefits to the applicant strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh & Ors. (supra), Bhola Nath (supra) and Pawan Kumar & Ors (supra), within a period 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.25
10:08:15 +05'30'