Pawan Kumar vs. Union Of India

NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 156

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO.29214 OF 2019)

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants having registered themselves with the
Employment Exchange claim to have worked as casual workers
with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior for a
considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would
be conferred temporary status and their services would be
thereafter regularized, the appellants initially made
representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request
not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central
1
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench by preferring Original
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.02.13
17:04:22 IST
Reason:

1
For short, the Tribunal

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 1 of 11


Application No.719 of 2012 with a prayer to consider their cases
for regularization in service. The Tribunal by its judgment dated
13.05.2015 held that the services of the appellants were not liable
to be regularized on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic
criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on 10.04.2006
in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
2
Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. . Being aggrieved, the appellants
approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the
aforesaid decision. By the judgment dated 26.08.2019, the High
Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid adjudication and
dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied by the said
judgment, the appellants have come up in appeal.
3. Facts material for considering the case as set-up by the
appellants are that appellants No.1 to 3 came to be engaged as
casual workers on the post of Sweeper from 01.10.1997,
01.05.1998 and 01.10.1997 respectively. Appellant No.4 was
casually engaged on the post of Cook from 27.12.1993. It is their
case that their names were sponsored through the Employment
Exchange and after being duly interviewed, they were engaged as
daily workers. According to them, in terms of Circulars dated

2
2006 INSC 216

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 2 of 11


04.07.2011 and 10.01.2012, the Income Tax Department
proceeded to outsource the work that was being done by the
appellants. They made various representations seeking
regularization of their services considering the period of service
rendered by them as casual workers. It is further the case of the
appellants that services of similarly placed casual workers were
directed to be regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in
3
Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. vide judgment
dated 13.03.2018. In the light of the fact that services of similarly
situated casual workers had been regularized by the Office of the
Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, the appellants sought similar
treatment. Relying upon the decision in Jaggo Vs. Union of India
4
and Ors. , it is urged that the engagement of the appellants could
only be termed as “irregular” and not “illegal”. The fact that the
work undertaken by the appellants was sought to be outsourced
indicated that the said work was of a perennial nature and that
only with a view to deprive the appellants of the benefit of
regularization, the outsourcing policy was being implemented. On
these counts, the appellants prayed for appropriate relief.

3
Civil Appeal Nos.2795-2796 of 2018
4
2024 INSC 1034

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 3 of 11


4. According to the Income Tax Department, the services of the
appellants are not liable to be regularized since their eligibility in
terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) and
Ors. (supra) of having rendered continuous service for ten years or
more as on 10.04.2006 was not satisfied by them. In absence of
any sanctioned post available at Gwalior, their services were not
liable to be regularized. The engagement of the appellants was
merely of a casual nature and their services were subsequently
being engaged through a contractor on contractual basis. It is,
thus, the case of the Income Tax Department that the Tribunal and
thereafter, the High Court having rightly denied relief to the
appellants, there was no reason to interfere with that adjudication.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
have also perused the documents on record. Having considered the
matter in detail, we are of the view that the services of the
appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated
as other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, whose
services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed
by this Court.
6. The appellants in the Convenience Compilation filed by them
pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2025 passed in the present

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 4 of 11


proceedings have sought to urge that the appellants are similarly
situated as the appellants in the case of Ravi Verma and Ors.
(supra) decided on 13.03.2018. Therein, the appellants had been
appointed as casual employees with the Income Tax Department
in the year 1993-94 after which they were working continuously.
Their prayer for regularization having been refused by the
Tribunal, the said appellants approached the High Court which,
however, dismissed their writ petition. This Court in the aforesaid
decision was pleased to note that regularization of similarly
situated employees at other places had been undertaken since the
year 2006 and that discriminatory treatment had been meted out
to the said appellants. It, accordingly, directed regularization of
their services from 01.07.2006 alongwith the consequential
benefits.
7. It would be material to note that in the aforesaid appeal, the
appellants were Mr. Ravi Verma, Smt. Munni Devi, Mr. Dharam
Dev Prasad, Mr. Nagendra Thakur & Mr. Sheshnath Choudhary.
The names of the aforesaid appellants alongwith the names of the
present appellants can be found in the list of daily-wage workers
working in the Office of Income Tax, Gwalior as on 31.10.2005.
The said list of daily-wage workers reads as under:

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 5 of 11


LIST OF DAILY WAGES WORKER WORKING CIT CHARGE
GWALIOR AS ON 31.10.2005

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 6 of 11

These names continued to find place in the subsequent lists
dated 11.11.2005 and 31.01.2008. It is, thus, clear that in view of
the decision of this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) , the
services of five daily-wage workers from the aforesaid list came to
be regularized. Undisputedly, the names of the present appellants
also find place in the said list dated 31.10.2005, 11.11.2005 and
31.01.2008. The present appellants are, therefore, similarly
situated as the appellants in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra).
8. It is also material to note that subsequently in the case of
5
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

5
Civil Appeal No.4146 of 2023

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 7 of 11


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 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

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 8 of 11


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 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 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

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 9 of 11


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.


Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 10 of 11


12. The applicants in Interim Application No.42233/2020, who
were impleaded as party respondents in view of the order dated
15.03.2021 are also entitled to the aforesaid reliefs.
13.
The Civil Appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

..………………………..J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]



.…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 13, 2026.


Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 11 of 11