Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Parsurama Sethi vs Directorate General Of Employment ... on 10 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021
Reserved on 09.03.2026 Pronounced on 10.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Parsuram Sethi, aged about 51 years, S/o.
Late Bhramara Sethi, resident of At/PO-
Haripur, Via- Singhpur, PS- Nirakarpur,
District- Khurda, Pin-752021.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
Secretary, Ministry of Labour and
Employment (DGET), Shram Shakti Bhawn,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director of Employment Exchanges,
Government of India, Ministry of Labour
and Employment (DGET), Shrama Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Sub-Regional Employment Officer, National
Career Service Centre for S.C./S.T., Ministry
of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India,
Room No.805, 806 and 807, 8th Floor,
Toshali Bhawan, Satya Nagar Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda, Pin-751007 (Odisha).
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. M.Panda, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.10
10:08:18 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA seeking for direction to the respondents to regularize his service in the post of Daftary w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement by quashing the orders dated 21.06.2021 [A/12], 21.06.2021 [A/13) and letter dated 25.06.2021 [A/14]. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, taking into consideration the continuance of the applicant as a daily wager since 1999, throwing him from his engagement at this age amounts to snatching his livelihood offending to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prayed that taking into consideration the milestone decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230, 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, and Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 Online SC 129, he is entitled to be regularized retrospectively, which would protect his present and post retirement life and livelihood.
2. Respondents contested and objected the relief claimed in this OA on various grounds such as the initial recruitment of the applicant was not through any regular process of selection as per rules and, that, no indefeasible right accrued on a daily wager to claim such regularization dehors the rules etc. and, accordingly, have stated that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
3. After giving a thread bearing consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the records.
4. From the record, it appears that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 543 of 2015 alleging therein that he has been continuing since 1996 on daily wage basis and made representation for his regularization but the respondents sat over his said grievance. Accordingly, intervention of this Bench on his prayer for regularization was sought by him. The RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 said OA was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with direction to consider and dispose of his representation. His representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 07.12.2015, which order he again challenged before this Bench in OA No. 141/2016 and this Bench disposed of the OA vide order dated 16.03.2021 directing therein as under:
"10. In the above circumstances the matter is remanded back to respondents/competent authority for fresh consideration of the case of the applicant for his regularization in accordance with decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in para 44 of Uma Devi case and M L Kesari case, as the applicant has been continuing in the job in question since the month of March 1999 without the cover of order of any Tribunal or Court. He is continuing as against one sanctioned post and has got required qualification. The respondent department could not fill the post in question inspite of advertisement issued earlier as discussed in para 7 of this order.
11. In view of the above the respondents are directed to consider his representation in accordance with law and the above decisions and pass a speaking and reasoned order to be communicated to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
5. Respondents rejected his prayer for regularization in order dated 21.06.2021 wherein it is stated that as per the record, the applicant has been engaged as daily rated worker in CGC for RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 SC/ST, Bhubaneswar from March, 1999 to March, 2003 on non- continuing basis and continuously from April, 2003 onwards. The Recruitment Rules does not provide for regularization of daily rated worker in the post of Daftary. The DoP&T OM dated 10.09.1993 is not an ongoing scheme providing therein that temporary is to be conferred on the casual employees, who was in employment on the date of commencement of the Scheme, i.e. on 10.09.1993. Since the applicant was not in engagement as on the said date, he is not entitled to get any benefit of the said OM dated 10.09.1993. Since, the applicant did not complete 10 years continuous service as on 10.04.2006, he was not also entitled to get any benefit o the strength of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and State of Karnataka & Ors Vs M.L. Kesari & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 2587, as prayed for by him. Followed by the aforesaid order dated 21.06.2021, respondents issued letter dated 25.06.2021 to the applicant directing him not to come to duty since his hand is no more required by them from 25.06.2021.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021
6. From the above, the respondents have themselves admitted that the applicant was in continuous engagement over a period of 18 [eighteen] years, i.e. from 2003 till 2021, prior to which he had also served for 4 [four] years on non-continuous basis. In the OA filed on 17.09.2021, it is stated that 51 years and, by now, he must have been aged about 55 years and obvious is debarred from getting any employment in any govt. organization for earning livelihood for himself and his dependent family members. The Directive Principles of State Policy, in the Constitution (Part IV, Articles 36-51) provides the state to ensure social justice, fair economic distribution, and worker welfare.
7. We find that in the matter of regularization of casual/daily rated workers engaged in the govt. organization has undergone a sea change by various latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Similar matter for regularization of causal employee engaged in BSNL came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 654/2015 and the Full Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2026 after taking note of the merit as well as law of limitation raised therein, by placing reliance on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 significant decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of regularization, rendered in the cases of Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR -SC-865, Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230, 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, and Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129, rendered the decision affirmatively in favour of regularization. Relevant portion of the decision of the Full Bench in OA No. 654/2015 is extracted herein below:
"9. It is not in dispute that w.e.f. 01.10.2000, the BSNL came into existence and it is a fact that, as per the Scheme issued by the DoT, casual workers engaged prior to 2000 were granted temporary status and consequent regularization by the BSNL by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in many cases. Besides, we find that in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of Dharma Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims of pending proceedings and that the successor body steps into the shoes of his predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. In view of the above, we do not have any iota of doubt to hold that the BSNL owe a duty and responsibility RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 to consider the regularization of the casual workers engaged prior to its formation.
xxx xxx xxx
13. We have examined the earlier cases relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, referred to above. We find that in the present case, the impugned order is of dated 26.06.2015 and the present OA is filed on 27.08.2015, which is within the limitation period of one year provided under the AT Act, 1985.
We also find that in none of those cases earlier decided by the Bench, relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, referred to above, no such order of rejection was there, which was challenged, as in the present case. Even though, in argumendo it is said that the present case also suffers from delay and laches, for raising the claim of regularization, this points needs to be adjudicated/decided on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court stood as on the date. Further, it is noteworthy that the matter was under internal correspondence between the authorities of the BSNL relating to regularization of the applicants. When others were regularized but the applicant could not be, they submitted representation seeking regularization and no consideration having given to their request, they approached this Bench. As per the order of this Bench, the BSNL considered their representation but rejected the same after which they filed the instant OA. Thus, the delay, if any, occasioned, was not intentional or deliberate on the part of the applicants but for the precise reason of the long history of engagement and the internal correspondence among the authorities of the BSNL. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) have also held that the Hon'ble High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the States stance in refusing sanction despite perennial need and long continuance of the applicants therein rather than throwing the matter on mere technicality. Hence, the point of delay as raised by the respondents has no application in the instant case.
xxx xxx xxx
22. Precedents: A source of "law" under the Constitution of India Article 141 of the Constitution lays down that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding upon all the courts with the territory of India. The "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which, the case is decided. Hence, it flows from the above RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 that the "law declared" is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgment as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. (See: Fida Hussain v. Moradabad Development Authority (2011) 12 SCC 615; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363). Further A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. Rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law. See: (i) Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT, Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 596 (ii) S.I. Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 594 (Three Judge Bench).
24. The distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam is lucidly captured in State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, 2015 (1) SCC Page 347 and the same has been referred and followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment passed in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC
225. Relevant extract of which is being reproduced herein below:-
"13. We may hasten to add that these principles may not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered in rem. The State and its instrumentalities are expected in such category of cases to themselves, extend the benefit of judicial pronouncements to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of Courts. This distinction between operation of delay and latches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam, is lucidly captured in UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, laying down that;
"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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
25. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in CWPOA NO.5741 of 2020, titled as Dhanveer Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 29.08.2023. In CWPOA No.2343 of RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 2020, titled as Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, and other connected matters, decided on 09.11.2023, the High Court has observed as under:-
23. In so far as the plea of limitation/delay and laches r is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected. As has already been stated supra, the plea of petitioners is based on discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another, 2001 (2) SCC 259, wherein, it has been categorically laid down that if there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India then petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
xxx xxx xxx
25. For delayed regularization, petitioners cannot be blamed as the same was to be done by the respondent-
Corporation. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and others alongwith connected matters decided on 28.07.2010." It is also apt to record that Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5806 of 2024, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others vs. Vikram Singh & others, laying challenge to the decision in Vikram Singh's case (supra), was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 15.03.2024."
26. The decision of Hon'ble Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. Prospective over-ruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to while superseding law declared by it earlier vide M.A. Murthy Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, 2003 (7) SCC 517.
27. In view of the above, the present case is to be covered and governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors (supra), being a latest decision dated 30.01.2026 than the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in the case of Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors (supra). The outcome of the discussions made above is that this Tribunal is obliged to decide a matter based on the latest law decided in rem by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, on the face of regularization of casual labourers and by virtue of such long continuance of the applicants, on the face of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, they got a right to be regularized, which is also fundamental to them and doctrine of acquiescence and waiver cannot take out such right due to delay or their engagement in casual of through contractor or of that matter they lost the ID case. .....
28. xxx the case of the Applicants are liable to be regularized as per the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dharam Singh (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra). The Respondents/BSNL authorities are to issue consequential order to the said effect within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
8. We also find that the Hon'ble Apex Court reinforced the law in support of regularization of casual employees in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156. The relevant portion is quoted below:
"8. We also find that the Tribunal dismissed the prayer for regularization of causal employees by applying the decision of the Uma Devi (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High court and in challenge, the Hon'ble Apex court vide decision dated 13.02.2026 in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, held that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the applicants therein by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal by observing that 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 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. Accordingly, directed to regularize the service of the applicants therein. It may be noted that the doctrine of parity and consistency in administrative action obligates the respondents to treat alike those who are similarly placed and, admittedly, the respondents have regularized 455 TSMs/CLs and, therefore, denying the present applicant regularization would tantamount to violation of the principle enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the law referred to above. The sequel of the discussions made above, takes this Bench to the ultimate conclusion that the order of rejection dated 16.03.2019 being not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as per the order of the Full Bench dated 10.02.2026 in OA 654/2015, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh & Others (supra), Shripal and Anr. (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra) with effect from the date the other 455 persons were regularized for the purpose of qualifying service within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
9. The above being the facts that the applicant had rendered 4 years un-continuous service since 1999 and 18 years of continuous service from 2003 to 2021 on daily wage basis and the law discussed above, direction to regularize the service of the applicant retrospectively inevitable. Accordingly, by quashing RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.10 10:08:18 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00431 of 2021 the impugned orders, the respondents are directed to issue the compliance order of regularization in favour of the applicant, by following the principle set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. 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
2026.03.10
10:08:18 +05'30'