Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Jamila Martins vs Income Tax Department on 23 June, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00092/2022
Order Reserved on: 24.04.2025
Date of Order: 23.06.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Jamila Martins,
W/o Shri Deu Martins, aged about 58 years,
Casual Labour with Temporary Status,
R/o 76, Pirabhat, Tiswadi Bombolim Complex SO,
Panaji, North Goa - 403202. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri T C Gupta)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through the Finance Secretary,
Ministry of finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa Region,
Queens Road, Bangalore - 560001. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
2025.06.26
mudgal 16:22:26+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 to seek the following reliefs:
"(i) In view of the facts and grounds enumerated above, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the applicant for regularisation from the date she completed ten years' service, with all consequential benefits.,
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be issued in favour of the Applicant."
2. The facts in nutshell of this case as per learned counsel for the applicant are as follows:
(i) The applicant has been working as casual labour from 01.01.1991. She was granted temporary status from 13.06.2000.
She completed continuous service of 31 years as casual labour in Income Tax Office, Panji. On completion of 10 years' continuous service itself as casual labour, she was eligible to be considered for regularization on the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). However, the respondents did not consider her name for regularization.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) The Learned counsel for Applicant points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 01.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 7423-7429 of 2018 in the case Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, observed that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, they ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them and they should be regularized.
(iii) According to the learned counsel for Applicant, the applicant with temporary status completed more than 10 years' service and was therefore eligible for consideration for regularization. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2795- 2796/2018 in the case of Ravi Verma & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the casual labours of Income-tax Department, MP may be regularized from the date when they completed ten years' service with all consequential benefits.
(iv) The learned counsel for Applicant also invited our ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE attention to the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 08.02.2021 in OA No. 592/2019 and 21 other similar OAs where the Tribunal had directed to consider the cases of the similarly placed casual labours for regularisation of their services from the dates when they completed 10 years' service, with all consequential benefits. Stating that Article 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India refer to the Right of Equality & Equal treatment, the applicant should be accordingly given benefit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 10.04.2006, 13.03.2018, 01.08.2018 and also decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal orders dated 08.02.2021 and accordingly her service should be regularized from the date when she completed 10 years' service with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. The respondents have made following contentions:-
(i) The matter is hit by delays and latches. The cause of action arose when the Apex Court judgments (relied upon by the Applicant) were passed in 2006. The Applicant has failed to explain the undue delay in raising the issue before the appropriate Judicial authorities within the time specified for such applications/petitions. The cause of action for her claim arose on completion of 10 years of service and even if the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Applicant cites the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, and the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, the Applicant has failed to explain the delay of more than 16 years and 4 years respectively in filing of the OA.
Therefore, the OA should be dismissed in view of delays and latches.
(ii) Moreover, the learned counsel for Respondents points out that the applicant approached the Hon'ble CAT, by making a false declaration in para-6 of the OA. This is contrary to Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act which provides for admission of application only if other remedies are exhausted. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that she has availed all or any of such alternative remedies and her statement amounts to making a false statement with the intention to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) The learned counsel for Respondents further avers that the contention that the Applicant was not considered for regularization was incorrect and misleading. Furthermore, he argues that the applicant has impleaded Finance Secretary and not the Revenue Secretary (the right Competent Authority) in the array of respondents and therefore the suit is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) The learned counsel for Respondents argues that the applicant had failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim that she completed 10 years of uninterrupted service in the department as on 10.04.2006 i.e. cut-off date for consideration of regularization. He says that the examination of records reveal that the applicant started working at Income Tax office, Panji in January 1991 and she was granted temporary status vide order dated 13.06.2000. In compliance of the judgment of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, the respondents had identified casual workers who had completed ten years of more service as on 10-04-2006 and regularized 11, 01 and 05 contingent employees vide orders of CCIT, Bangalore dated 15/03/2010, 22/11/2010 and 05/08/2011 respectively. He insists that the name of the applicant was also considered but her services could not be regularized as she did not have required educational qualification for consideration for the post of peon or watchman or safaiwala or farasha.
(v) The learned counsel for Respondents contends that the judgment of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, clearly mandated that only those with the requisite educational qualification along with duration of service were eligible for consideration for regularization. In this regard, he cites the relevant paragraph from the judgment for reading reference as ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE follows:-
"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 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 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 above referred to. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalists should take steps to regularize as a one time measure.
(vi) The learned counsel for Respondents also points out that the reliance of learned counsel for Applicant in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, is misplaced. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified the intent of Uma Devi judgment and emphasized on requisite qualification apart from duration of service. The relevant para from the judgment is hereunder:-
"The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation"
(vii) The learned counsel for Respondents asserts that since the applicant was already considered for regularization and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE found to be ineligible consequent to the order of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, the question of considering her again following the order in the case Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, did not arise. He requests this Hon'ble Tribunal to take cognizance of the fact that the Respondents have already filed WPs against the said decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the court was pleased to grant interim stay on the order. The final decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is awaited. It is also brought to the notice of Hon'ble Tribunal that in view of the interim stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court the said orders have not been implemented.
(viii) The learned counsel for Respondents points out that the contention of the learned counsel for Applicant that the applicant was similarly placed as applicant in OA Nos. 592/2019 & 21 other similar OAs is not correct. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel for Respondents cites the DoPT order vide OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt. (C) dated 7th June 1988 which was issued in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th January, 1986 in the Writ Petition filed by Shri Surinder Singh and others vs. Union of India. The following guidelines were issued regarding recruitment of casual workers ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE on daily wage basis:-
"(a) Persons on daily wages should not recruited for work of regular nature.
(b) Recruitment of daily wagers may be made only for work which is casual or seasonal or intermittent nature or for work which is not of full time nature, for which regular posts cannot be created.
All the administrative Ministries/Deptts. should undertake a review of appointment of casual workers in the offices under their control on a time-bound basis so that at the end of the prescribed period, the following targets are achieved:-
(a) All eligible casual workers are adjusted against regular posts to the extent such regular posts are justified.
(b) The rest of the casual workers not covered by (a) above and whose retention is considered absolutely necessary and is in accordance with the guidelines, are paid emoluments strictly in accordance with the guidelines.
(c) The remaining casual workers not covered by (a) and (b) above are discharged from service."
(ix) The learned counsel for Respondents points out that the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi (supra) clearly states that relaxation to posting norms can be done as a one-time measure only and cannot be perpetuated. In the present case, the onetime measure of regularization as expounded in the Umadevi judgment was already been carried out by the Respondents following DoPT's ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE OM dated 11.12.2006 and CBDT'S directions in F.No. A-
12033/2/2009-Ad.VII dated 22.07.2009. Vide orders dated 15.03.2010, 22.11.2010 & 05.08.2011, under which 17 casual labourers who conformed to the prerequisites set by the Uma Devi verdict were regularized.
(x) The learned counsel for Respondents also points out that the DoPT vide its OMs Dated 24.01.1960 & 26.10.1984 stipulated that Group D posts that were required to be filled by direct recruitment were to be sourced from the Employment Exchange. Only those casual labourers who were possessing more than two years' experience would be eligible for recruitment to posts in the regular establishment. As per the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 all the group D vacancies are to be notified in the local Employment Exchange/ Central Employment Exchange. The Apex Court, in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, highlighted the importance of notifying vacancies with Employment Exchange and stated as follows:-
"The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer in as much as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States............................................ It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure............................ Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed."
(xi) The learned counsel for Respondents avers that the engagement of the Applicant was not consequent to any newspaper advertisement, nor sponsorship by an employment exchange, which are the correct mode of employment provided by the rules and the Uma Devi judgment cited supra.
(xii) The learned counsel for Respondents further places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J. Pathan and others in Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 2022 dated 24-03-2022 which held that regularization or absorption to government services is not ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE possible when Petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned posts in the Government of India. He states that even The Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision in CWP- 20333-2016 (O&M) in Gurinder Singh and others Vs. the State of Punjab and others dated 21-01-2022 abolished posts created out of non-constitutional scheme following the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1.
(xiii) The learned counsel for Respondents also invites our attention to the fact that consequent to implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission, Group 'D' posts were abolished from the Central Government Establishments and the lowest entry level to Central Government offices now is only in the cadre of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff Group C) for which recruitment, the mode of entry is only through an open competitive examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission. Regularization of the Petitioner would be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution which strives for equality before the law and guarantees for equal opportunity to all citizens in matters related to employment in the public sector and thus would be injustice to those willing & waiting for the opportunity to compete for the post of MTS (Open recruitment exam) against which the Applicant wants to be considered for regularisation.
(xiv) The learned counsel for Respondents highlighted the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE distinction between the profile of regular and temporary employees. He stated that the regular employees were subject to Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, including regular attendance, and clear laid down criteria regarding performance of duties etc. which were not the case with respect to temporary employees. He further states that the Applicant was engaged purely on temporary basis for the work which was casual/temporary and intermittent in nature. If the candidates employed for temporary nature of work would be regularized against posts of regular employment, it would indeed discourage the candidates who appear through competitive examinations for their regular employments which will also be violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(xv) In this regard, learned counsel for Respondents cites the following OM No.49014/7/2020-Estt. (C), dated 7th October, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, DOPT states as follows:-
(a) Equality of opportunity is the hallmark for public employment and it is in terms of constitutional scheme only.
(b) The filling of vacancy cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations.
(c) The state is meant to be a model employer and can make appointments only in accordance with the rules ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
(d) Regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, or anybody, or authority governed by statutory act or the rules framed there under.
Regularization, furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. The fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularization.
(e) Any regular appointment made on a post under the state or union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates and without holding proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article. 16 of the Constitution.
(f) If it is a contractual employment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract.
(xvi) The Apex Court has clarified that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. (xvii) Additionally, the learned counsel for the respondents observed that there was absolute Non-existence of any term or condition for regularization of the Petitioner at the time of engagement. The Petitioner was engaged for casual/ temporary nature of work which was intermittent in nature. The Petitioner was engaged without any assurance of regularization against ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE any regular permanent vacancy. The Petitioner was aware of the fact that their engagement was temporary. (xviii) The applicant cannot be regularized as per the extant rules. To summarize, the learned counsel for the respondents essentially stated the following reasons for quashing the O.A.:-
(a) The O.A was time barred and was hit by delays & latches. Also, the applicant had not exhausted the available remedies and included Finance Secretary instead of Revenue Secretary as one of the respondents.
(b) Regularization as per the Uma Devi's judgment was a onetime measure granted to employees who completed 10 years of continuous service on 10.04.2006 and who possessed the required minimum qualification. Though the applicant had the necessary service, she did not have the required minimum qualification for consideration for regularization.
(c) The Judgments of M L Kesari as well as Narendra Kumar Tiwari do not help the case of the applicant and others similarly placed daily wage workers as the facts & circumstances are dissimilar.
(d) In the judgment of Union of India and Anr. Vs. ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Mohan Pal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that the Scheme of 01.09.1993 was not an ongoing scheme.
(e) The applicant had already been granted 'Temporary Status'.
(f) The job of applicant was neither sponsored through an employment exchange, nor the applicant held the desired qualification for such recruitment.
(g) Regularization of daily wage employees will be in Violation of Rights enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution which provide for equality in matter of employment opportunities; since the Applicant was neither engaged through the sponsorship of the employment exchange nor through advertisement of recruitment for such vacancies.
(h) The appointment is neither in accordance with rules, not against any regular vacancy.
(i) The applicant and other daily wage earners are employed for casual/temporary and intermittent nature of work. They are not covered under any terms of employment unlike regular employees.
(j) The nature of duties of regular employees and the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE contingent employees differ. Further, being a daily wage worker the petitioner is not liable to any disciplinary penalty or proceedings for any misconduct on their part during official duty hours, unlike the regularly placed employees.
(k) Daily wage workers cannot be absorbed against regular vacancies. And the respondents cannot create posts for which no sanction has been made by the Government of India.
4. The learned counsel for Applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the learned counsel for Respondents. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for Applicant has raised the following contentions:-
(i) The learned counsel for Applicant states that the respondents did not file the copy of the minutes of the meeting, in which her case came up for regularization. Further, the respondents never intimated the applicant regarding consideration of her name for regularisation. Further, the alleged 17 persons regularised in orders dated 15.3.2020, 22.11.2010 and 5.8.2011 were not regularised on criteria of qualification, seniority or on the basis of Umadevi verdict but they were regularised as per the sweet will & convenience of the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE respondents.
(ii) As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 14.12.2007 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs. Sadhana Khanna [(2008) SCC 720], the department cannot recoil and take benefits of their own mistake. The Kanpur Region in orders dated 5.4.2022 and 9.5.2022 has regularised services of 6 casual labours as MTS, in consideration of Umadevi case. These cases could not be regularised immediately after the decision of Umadevi.
(iii) The learned counsel for Applicant further states that the tenth pass qualification was only for direct recruitment for MTS. Under the same RR no qualification has been prescribed for appointment as MTS by promotion, deputation or absorption. The case of the applicant is not of direct recruitment. As per respondents seniority/establishment list of MTS as on 1.2.2019 there are total 128 MTS. Out of 128 MTS, 4 are illiterate, 2 are 2nd class, 11 are below 5th class and 35 other are below 10th pass.
(iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the education qualification will be considered as applicable at the time of engagement as casual labours, which will be 01.01.1991 in this case. The applicant was engaged as casual labour on 01.01.1991, because she fulfilled the requisite qualification ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE prescribed at that time for engagement as casual labours. Therefore, the claim made by the respondents is baseless and not tenable. In this regard, he cites the copy of Kanpur Region Order dated 30-1-2009, which shows, that most of the casual labours regularized were not 10th Pass.
5. The respondents have filed a detailed additional reply in which they have made the following arguments:-
(i) The applicant may be put to strict proof of the evidence against which allegation of ad hoc regularisation. The respondents had formed a committee for considering the regularization of the individuals working as casual labours and after due consideration of all the criteria to be fulfilled as per the Uma Devi verdict, only those who were eligible were regularized. The claim that seniority was not considered is baseless. Seniority applies only to regular employees and not to the persons working on daily wages. However, the date of joining is one of the many criteria to be considered for regularization to the extent that the individual must have completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006.
(ii) The completion of 10 years of service was one of the many criteria for regularization of casual workers as per Uma Devi verdict. Accordingly, only those casual workers fulfilling ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE all the criteria were regularized. Further, it is submitted that the order of UP (West), relied on by the petitioner was passed on 30.01.2009 well before the letter issued by the CBDT in F.No. A 12033/2/2009-Ad. VII Dt. 27.07.2009 fixing the cutoff date for reckoning the tenure of working for 10 years or more.
(iii) The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the filing of copy of minutes of meeting, was not possible as the minutes of working of internal committees of the department are confidential in nature.
(iv) The claim of the applicant that there is no requisite qualification for appointment as MTS by promotion, deputation or absorption is wrong. It is pertinent to note that the signatory of the letters of Kanpur Region on which the applicant has relied had called for various documents including educational qualification for consideration of candidature for regularization.
(v) It is reiterated here that the candidature of the applicant in the instant case was considered, but on verification it was found that she was not entitled for regularization as she did not have the required educational qualification for the post of peon or safaiwala or farrash. The prescribed education qualification for appointment to the post of peon was Std. 8th passed and that of Watchman, Safaiwala and Farrash was Std. 5th passed. At the time of consideration for regularization by this office, it was ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE seen that the applicant Smt. Jamila Martins did not possess the minimum qualification of 5th Std. required for appointment as Group 'D'. Hence, her name was not considered for regularization.
(vi) In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents cited the judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others which states that the necessary educational qualification must be met even while considering absorption of a temporarily engaged person through regularization. The relevant extract in paragraphs 45 to 50 is as follows:
"If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State..."
(vii) He further states that the CBDT vide its letter dated 22.07.2009 fixed the cutoff date for reckoning the tenure of working for 10 years or more as the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Uma Devi case, i.e. 10.04.2006. The applicant had not completed 10 years of service as on the cutoff date and hence she was not regularized.
6. We have carefully heard the arguments and averments of the learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents. We have also ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE gone through the relevant circulars of DoPT, Directorate of Income Tax and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, which have been adduced as evidence in their affidavits filed by the same learned counsel for the applicant and respondents.
7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant has joined as a casual labour on 01.01.1991 and she was granted temporary status from 13.06.2000. It is also not disputed that she had completed continuous service of 31 years as a casual labour in Income Tax Office Panaji at the time of filing this O.A. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant had served the department for over 30 years and her service was uninterrupted. Throughout her service there were no complaints against her performance of duties, and nothing contrary to it has been brought on record. It is also brought on record that many other similarly situated individuals were regularized in employment while she was denied the same. It is further pointed out that the criteria of educational qualification was irrelevant as it was not stipulated at the time of her recruitment as a casual labour in 1991, but was stipulated in 2009.
8. It is seen that the grounds mentioned above on which the, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued against the regularization of the applicant had almost all been covered in and are ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE very similar to what was considered and deliberated upon in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 INSC 1034 SLP(c) No. 5580 of 2024. This is detailed as below:-
"(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts.
According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or part- time engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition."
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
9. The above mentioned grounds have been dealt with in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 INSC 1034 SLP(c) No. 5580 of 2024. The relevant paras of this judgment are deliberated below for easy reference:
"11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day- to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas--a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
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 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 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.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed--cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening--does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades.
Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.
18. The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees working as the Multi- Tasking Staff published by the Respondent Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were a part of the staff without the required educational qualification:
S. Name Education Date of Temporar Catagory No. al Continuou y or Qualificat s CWC Permanen ion Service t posts
1. Krishna S/o Illiterate 26.07.198 Permanen SC Lt. Khajan 8 t Singh
2. Naresh Devi Illitereate 29.10.199 Permanen Gen W/o Ld. 1 t Surendra Kumar
3. Shiv Kumar Illitereate 08.09.199 Permanen SC S/o Lt. Pratap 4 t Singh
4. Radhe Shyam Illitereate 30.05.201 Permanen OBC S/o Lt. Sadhu 2 t Ram Maurya
5. Raju S/o Shri Illitereate 12.07.199 Permanen SC Banshi Lal 4 t
6. Shahjad Ali Illitereate 01.07.201 Permanen Gen S/o Naushad 0 t Ali
7. Punam W/o Illitereate 21.09.201 Permanen SC ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Lt. Raj Kumar 5 t
8. Nirmala W/o Illitereate 02.02.202 Temporar SC Lt. Raju 2 y A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent department's approach. Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in law.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.
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 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 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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..."
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 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 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
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.
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.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith.
10. It is pertinent to mention that similar view has been taken in judgment in W.P No. 17031/2021 (S-CAT) c/w W.P No. 15836/2021 (S-CAT), passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 06th March, 2025. The relevant paras of this judgment are quoted as below:-
"4. The petitioners' stand before the Tribunal was that, the respondents were engaged on casual basis on 01.08.1997 and they were granted temporary status on 13.06.2000.
7. An identical issue was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari and Ors., wherein in paragraph No. 10, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one- time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] are considered."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors [(20240 9 SCC 327], has in paragraph No. 5 onwards, held as under:-
"5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement."
11. The learned counsel for the respondent had repeatedly asserted that the appointment of casual employees without involvement of ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE employment exchange is irregular. In this regard our attention was invited to the CBDT circular vide F.No. A - 12033/2/2009-Ad. VII dated 22 July 2009, on the subject of regularisation of daily paid labourers / Casual labourers, in which para 2 (a) states as follows:
"The clarification given by DoP&T are as under:-
A. This department's O.M. No. 49014/2/93-Estt. 'C' dated 12.07.1994 clearly stipulates that since it is mandatory to engage casual employees through Employment Exchange, the appointment of casual employees without Employment Exchange is irregular."
12. This aspect has been adequately covered in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. judgment cited Supra. Additionally, it is seen that in pursuance to Uma Devi's judgment, an order vide F.No. Pr. CCIT/KNP/Admn./24/2023-24/4950 dated 30.10.2023 was issued by Pr. Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department which states as follows:
"NG- 20/2023-24 "Following the judgment dated 10.04.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. and subsequent instructions issued by the DoP&T and CBDT, New Delhi the services of Casual Workers were regularized by the office vide order dtd. 30.01.2009, 18.02.2011 and 25.02.2013. Now, in pursuance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No(S) 2795-2796 of 2018 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 33 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33258-33259 of 2015 the date of regularization of these officials shall be considered as 01.07.2006 or the date of completion of 10 years of service as Casual Worker, whichever is later. Accordingly, the deemed date of regularization of the following officials, regularized by this office order dated 30.01.2009, 18.02.2011 and 25.02.2013, may be read as mentioned against their respective names:-
S. Name Date of Post on which Date of recruitment Date or order of Deemed date of No. (S/Shri/Smt./Ms.) Birth regularized as casual regularization Regularization.
worker/adjusted issued by this
date office
1. Reoti Saran 28.01.62 Peon 12.05.83 30.01.2009 01.07.2006
2. Kayam Singh 21.08.59 Peon 12.01.88 30.01.2009 01.07.2006
3. Darshani Devi 10.08.67 Chowkidar 09.03.89 30.01.2009 01.07.2006
4. Vipin Kumar Verma 04.05.70 Peon 17.03.92 30.01.2009 01.07.2006
5. Mohan Lal 12.09.70 Peon 01.08.92 30.01.2009 01.07.2006
- --------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
86. Rakesh Sharma 08.10.74 Chowkidar 15.11.97 30.01.2009 15.11.2007
87. Jeevan Singh 22.03.77 Chowkidar 01.12.97 30.01.2009 01.12.2007
88. Shiv Dayal 03.10.73 Chowkidar 19.12.97 30.01.2009 19.12.2007
89. Lala Ram 10.07.68 Peon - 18.02.2011 01.07.2006
90. Kanhaiya Lal 30.07.75 Peon - 18.02.2011 01.07.2006
91. Uma Shankar Singh 07.04.76 Chowkidar - 25.02.2013 01.07.2006
92. Rajiv Kumar 15.10.74 Chowkidar - 25.02.2013 01.07.2006
This issues with the prior approval of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (West) & Uttarakhand Region, Kanpur."
13. Furthermore, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, cited Supra a very clear distinction has been made between irregular and illegal appointment. The relevant portion of this ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 34 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE judgment is as follows:
44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 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 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 above referred 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 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 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. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 35 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
14. Furthermore it is also seen that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 3.7.2023 in the case of SLP (C) No.7898/2020 Raman Kumar & Ors.Vs. UOI&Ors there has been another order from CBDT on regularization of Casual Workers. This CBDT order vide its file No. F.No. HRD/ADG-11/160/3/2023- 24/45 dated 02.04.2024 is reproduced ad verbatim as follows:
"TO, The Pr.CCsIT/PDGsIT/DGIT (by name) ATTN: CsIT (Admn & TPS) Madan/Sir, Sub: Regularization of Casual Workers in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgment dated 3.7.2023 in the case of SLP (C) No.7898/2020 Raman Kumar & Ors.Vs.UOI & Ors Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject.
2. In this regard, this office had referred the matter for seeking opinion/advice of the DoPT regarding implementation of order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SLP (C) No.7898/2020 Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors read with Uma Devi and M.L.Kesari judgments in rem across various CCA Charges of the Department so as to have a uniform approach and also to avoid unnecessary litigation on the issue.
3. The DoPT has agreed to the proposal to implement the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in rem subject to the following conditions:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 36 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) The CCAs shall ensure that all such similarly placed casual workers satisfy the mandatory conditions for regularisation under the Uma Devi Judgment such as being duly qualified as per extant guidelines etc...
(ii) The casual workers had been working against the sanctioned posts for ten years or more on the date of Uma Devi Judgment i.e. 10.04.2006 but not under cover of Orders of Courts or Tribunals.
4. The DoPT has further agreed to the proposal that in view of the fact that all the erstwhile Group D posts had been upgraded to Group C posts and recruitment to erstwhile Group 'D' posts, placed in Group 'C', PB-1, Grade Pay 1800/- (non-technical as MT Staff), is now made only through Staff Selection Commission, therefore, the Department may regularize the eligible casual workers in Group D cadre and then subsequently merge them into MTS cadre in pursuance to the DoPT's O.M. No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt(RR) dated 30.04.2010 and O.M. No. AB-1401 7/39/2013-Estt. (RR) dated 23.12.2013. 4.1. The Department of Expenditure has also concurred with the proposal.
5. In light of the above, I am directed to request to regularize services of similarly placed casual workers eligible for regularisation under cover of order dated 3.7.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SLP (C) No.7898/2020 Raman Kumar & Ors.Vs.UOI across various CCA regions of the Department."
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant has failed to provide evidence in support of her claim that she completed 10 years of uninterrupted service as on 10.04.2006 is not tenable. The respondents, in para 7 (1) of its reply, has stated as follows:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 37 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE "Though the applicant had the necessary service, she did not have the minimum qualification for consideration for regularization." Furthermore, he has repeatedly mentioned that the case of the applicant was considered for regularization but was rejected as she did not have the requisite educational qualification. It is obvious from this that, had she not completed 10 years of uninterrupted service, her case would not have been considered for regularization by the Department."
16. It is further seen that the issue of regularisation of casual workers has already been dealt with in O.A. Nos. 592/2019, 636/2019, 637/2019, 638/2019, 639/2019, 640/2019, 641/2019, & 642/2019, by CAT Bangalore Bench. In these cases also, the applicants had been working as casual labourers since first August 97 and were granted temporary status with effect from 13.6.2000. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Ors. VGs. PWD Employees Union and Ors. and Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi - (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court Judgment dtd. 01.08.2018 in Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, this Bench upheld the contentions of the applicants. The relevant portions of the judgment in this case by Bangalore Bench is as follows:
"13. In our considered view, after conferring the temporary status upon the applicants on 13.06.2000, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization of their services against 2 out of every 3 vacancies in Group 'D' cadre. However, the said right has continuously been ignored and they have been made to suffer for years together in one litigation ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 38 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE or the other.
14. In Ravi Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with almost an identical situation where the applicants therein were initially appointed as casual employees in the Income Tax Department in the year 1993-94 and they had been working continuously since then. On 30.01.2004, with respect to other similarly situated employees, temporary status was granted by the respondent department. The Respondent No. 4 therein had recommended the cases of applicants therein on 30.12.2004 for according temporary status/regularization. The same recommendation was again made on 14.6.2005. In the meantime, the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the pronouncement of said judgment, the cases of applicants therein were again recommended for regularization/temporary status on 01.06.2007 as their services were required for the smooth functioning of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The said recommendation was further followed by recommendations dated 01.01.2008 and 31.01.2008. However, the services of the applicants therein were not regularised, though the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, UP West, Ghaziabad had regularised similarly situated 88 casual employees on 30.01.2009 and the Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Odisha had also regularised similarly situated 8 employees on 12.03.2009. On 01.06.2009, the Applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 therein were sanctioned minimum of the pay scale of Group 'D' employees with Dearness Allowance in accordance with DOPT circular dated 31.05.2004 and in terms of the order of CCIT dated 07.11.2007 and 06.12.2007 on conferring temporary status on the employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further noticed that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata has regularized 111 similarly situated casual employees on 22.09.2009 and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow has also regularised 59 similarly situated casual employees on ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 39 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 22.01.2010. Still further, 35 employees in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna were regularized on 20.8.2010. After taking note of all these facts and the Umadevi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a direction to respondents to regularize the services of the applicants therein with effect from 01.07.2006.
15. In our considered view, the case of the applicants herein is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Verma (supra). Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) has observed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize, as a one time measure, the services of irregularly appointed employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but subsequently while finding exceptional circumstances in PWD Employees Union (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) directions were issued to the respondents therein to consider the cases of employees for regularization of their services.
16. Similar kind of exceptional circumstances have been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Verma (supra) wherein the employees were initially recruited in the year 1993-94 and they were granted temporary status and, while granting parity to them with their counterparts working in different zones, a direction was given to regularize their services with effect from 01.07.2006.
17. In CWP No. 27795/2013 titled as Devi Dass vs Union of India and Others, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has observed as follows:
"We are very much convinced that the petitioner has a case. It appears that the respondent had adopted unfair labour practice like a private institution employing the petitioner on a contract basis and not regularizing him for the past 26 years. We are in a welfare state. Such practice cannot be approved by Court of law and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 40 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE justice. The petitioner, whatever be the merit of the case, shall be regularized within one month from the date of this order." 18. A similar order was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 24963/2014 in case titled as Sarup Singh vs Union of India and Others in which the petitioner had put in 22 years of service as a driver and had not been regularized. The orders in CWP No. 24963/2014 were subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the SLP filed by the respondents was dismissed on 29.08.2016. 19. In the conspectus of discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the present Original Applications deserve to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the Original Applications are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for regularization of their services from the dates they have completed 10 years in service with all consequential benefits. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of it's certified copy."
17. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the case of the applicant is well covered and falls within the scope of the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Courts, and this Tribunal itself' and the orders of the Income Tax Department, cited above.
18. Hence, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicant from the date she completed 10 years of service, with all consequential benefits, within three months of receipt of this order.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore 2025.06.26 mudgal 16:22:26+05'30' 41 O.A.No.170/0092/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
19. M.As, if any stand disposed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
2025.06.26
mudgal 16:22:26+05'30'