Paramjeet singh vs REVENUE

1
OA No.423/2024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH

O.A. No.423/2024

Chandigarh, this the 15th day of October, 2026
Reserved on: 31.08.2026.

HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
​
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

1. ​ Paramjeet Singh s/o Late Sh. Manohar Singh, aged 48 years, working
as Farsh in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, CGST,
Jalandhar, Punjab-144001.
2. ​ Doodh Nath s/o Late Sh. Ram Raj, aged 45 years, working as Farsh in
the office of Commissioner, Jalandhar Commissionerate, CGST,
Jalandhar, Punjab-144001.
3. ​ Sanjay Kumar s/o Late Sh. Dhruv Dev Singh, working as Farsh in the
office of Assistant Commissioner, Division -3, CGST, Jalandhar,
Punjab-144001.
(Casual Labourer)
Group-D.
…Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K. B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. ​ Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110101.
2. ​ Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh Zone,
Plot No. 19, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh-160017.
3. ​ The Commissioner, Central Excise & GST Commissionerate-Jalandhar,
Ventral GST, C.R. Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar-144001.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATES: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr.CGSC along with Ms. Jyotika
Panesar)
O R D E R
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. ​ The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A,
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking
the following relief:
“i). That the impugned order dated 24.4.2023
(Annexure A-14) qua applicant be quashed and set
aside.
ii) That the respondents be directed to consider the
case of the applicants for regularization of their
services, in the interest of justice, particularly, in
view of the facts that services of number of Casual
Labourers (part timers) working in the same
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

2
OA No.423/2024

department have been regularized by the
respondent department.
Or alternatively,
The respondents be directed to extend the benefit
of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.'s
No. 613/2011 titled as G. Shanker Reddy & Ors vs
Union of India & Ors, decided on 26.7.2012, O.A.
No. 800/2012 titled as P. Thirupathaiah & Ors vs
Union of India and Ors, decided on 25.2.2014
which stands implemented by the respondents vide
order dated 16.1.2019, 17.1.2019. After
regularization the applicants be also switched over
to Old Pension Scheme by counting their daily wage
service.
ii). That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any
other order in favour of the applicants which it may
deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case.
iv). That cost of the application may also be
awarded in favour of the applicants.”

2. ​ Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicants, are that the
applicants were initially engaged directly by the respondents as
Frash on daily-wage basis between 1995 and 1998 and have been
continuously discharging their duties without any break, with their
wages being paid directly by the department.
3. ​ The applicants claim that, though subsequently treated as
contractor’s employees, their status as direct employees has
already been adjudicated in their favour. In this regard, they rely
upon the order dated 14.08.2002 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 800/CH/2001, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court on 23.05.2003 in CWP No. 7983/CAT/2003.
The applicants thereafter filed O.A. No. 448/PB/2004, which was
disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2005
(Annexure A-1) in terms of the decision in Kiran Pal & Others ,
subject to the outcome of the pending SLP. The said order was
challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court,
which allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 02.12.2009
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

3
OA No.423/2024

(Annexure A-2). The applicants challenged the same before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, vide order dated 19.11.2012
(Annexure A-3), held that there was direct evidence showing the
applicants to be direct employees of the respondent department.
4. It is further pleaded that the respondents thereafter rejected the
​
applicants’ claim for regularization vide order dated 17.06.2013,
compelling them to file O.A. No. 922/PB/2013. The said O.A. was
allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure
A-4), in terms of the decision in Jasbir Singh (Annexure A-5). In
compliance thereof, the respondents granted the applicants the
minimum of the pay scale vide order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure
A-6), pursuant to Government of India O.M. dated 07.06.1988. The
applicants contend that despite having rendered about 26 to 29
years of service, their services have still not been regularized.
5. ​ The applicants further rely upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 11.12.2006
(Annexure A-7), issued pursuant to the Constitution Bench
judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (Civil
Appeal No.3595-3612/1999), submitting that their case for
regularization ought to have been considered in view of their long
and continuous service. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment
dated 19.07.2011 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.
16733/2009, Union of India & Others v. S. Rita Mary & Anr. ,
pursuant to which the respondents issued a policy dated
01.01.2020, modified vide letter dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure
A-8), under which, according to the applicants, the services of
similarly situated employees involved in litigation were regularized,
whereas non-litigant employees such as the applicants were
discriminated against. It is further stated that another letter dated
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

4
OA No.423/2024

24.02.2021 was issued for regularization of part-time casual
labourers, whereas the applicants, being full-time workers, were
denied similar benefit.
6. ​ The applicants further submit that, instead of regularizing their
services, the respondents issued a letter dated 24.08.2021
(Annexure A-12) indicating filling up of the posts of MTS and
Havildar through the Staff Selection Commission. The applicants
thereafter served a legal notice dated 31.01.2023 seeking
regularization and grant of Temporary Status (Annexure A-13). The
respondents rejected their claim by the impugned speaking order
dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-14), principally on the grounds that
the applicants had been engaged through a contractor and were
not engaged against sanctioned posts.
7. ​ Assailing the impugned order, the applicants contend that the issue
of their status as direct employees already stands concluded by the
order dated 19.11.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
subsequent orders of this Tribunal. They further submit that the
plea regarding engagement through an unregistered contractor is
contrary to the earlier adjudication. It is also contended that 4647
additional temporary posts, including 666 posts of Sepoy and 60
posts of Peon, were created vide letter dated 07.08.2007, and that
vacancies arising from promotions and retirements of Group-D
employees have remained unfilled since 2001.
8. ​ Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the applicants
have been working continuously for the last more than 26 years,
keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14831 of 2024 titled Jaggo v
Union of India’ , decided on 20.12.2024, Civil Appeal No.8558
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

5
OA No.423/2024

of 2018 , titled ‘ Dharam Singh and others v State of Uttar
Pradesh and another’ , decided on 19.08.2025 and Civil Appeal
No.8158-7179 of 2024 titled ‘Shripal and another v Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad , decided on 31.01.2025, the employees who
have continuously worked for more than 10 years, are entitled for
the regularization of their services and no objection can be taken
on such regularization based upon non-availability of the post or
even fulfilling the requisite qualifications.
9. ​ The respondents by way of written statement submitted that there
is no sanctioned post of Frash/Sweeper in Jalandhar
Commissionerate and that the applicants do not possess the
requisite qualifications under the applicable Recruitment Rules.
Reliance is placed upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 11.12.2006
(Annexure R-1) and the Central Excise and Customs Department,
Havaldar and Head Havaldar (Group ‘C’) Recruitment Rules, 2015,
notified vide GSR No. 233(E) dated 30.03.2015, under which the
post of Havaldar is required to be filled 100% through direct
recruitment by the Staff Selection Commission. It is submitted that
although the applicants were treated as direct employees pursuant
to the orders passed in Kiran Pal & Others v. Union of India &
Others , the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide judgment
dated 02.12.2009, had set aside the Tribunal’s order dated
18.10.2005 and held, relying upon Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1, that daily wagers
cannot claim regularization or a declaration of being direct
employees.
10. ​ The respondents further submit that the applicants were never
appointed against any sanctioned or vacant posts and are
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

6
OA No.423/2024

presently receiving only minimum wages/pay on daily basis
pursuant to the Tribunal’s judgment dated 24.09.2014 in O.A. No.
922/PB/2013, whereby their wages were directed to be protected.
According to the respondents, mere long continuation in service
does not confer any vested right to regularization. In support,
reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
Chief Officer, Municipal Council & Anr. v. Shekhar B. Abhang
& Anr. , W.P. No. 4129 of 2009, decided on 06.05.2024. It is also
submitted that the applicants were initially engaged through a
contractor and were subsequently, after litigation, were granted
minimum pay on daily basis pursuant to DoP&T O.M. dated
07.06.1988.
11. ​ It is further submitted that the Policy dated 01.01.2020, modified
vide letter dated 06.02.2020, under which the services of certain
litigating employees were regularized, is not applicable to the
applicants. The respondents place reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.02.2023 in Vibhuti Shankar
Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh , contending that
regularization cannot be claimed where the initial appointment was
not made by the competent authority and the employees were not
working against sanctioned posts.
12. ​ The respondents further submit that the applicants’ claim based
upon the judgment dated 24.09.2014 in O.A. No. 922/PB/2013 is
misconceived, as the said judgment only directed payment of
wages at par with similarly situated juniors. It is contended that
the applicants have already been treated as direct employees for
the limited purpose of payment of wages pursuant to the orders
dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

7
OA No.423/2024

24.09.2014 passed by this Tribunal, but such treatment does not
make them eligible for regularization.
13. ​ We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone
through the material available on record.
14. From the pleadings itself, it is admitted fact that the applicants
​
have been continuously working in the respondent department
since the period 1995–1998 and have been discharging duties on
daily-wage basis for a considerable length of time. They have not
been regularized in service and are presently being paid the
minimum of the applicable pay scale on daily-wage basis pursuant
to the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation. In particular,
the respondents issued order dated 14.08.2015 granting them the
benefit of minimum pay in terms of the DoP&T O.M. dated
07.06.1988.
15. ​ The parties have been engaged in substantial earlier litigation
concerning the status of the applicants and their claim for service
benefits, including proceedings in O.A. No. 800/CH/2001, CWP No.
7983/CAT/2003, O.A. No. 448/PB/2004, the proceedings
culminating in the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, and thereafter O.A. No. 922/PB/2013 before this
Tribunal.
16. ​ It is further undisputed that the applicants' services have not been
regularized and that their claim for regularization and Temporary
Status, raised through legal notice dated 31.01.2023, came to be
rejected by the respondents vide the impugned speaking order
dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-14).
17. ​ The respondents also do not dispute that the applicants have been
continued in service and paid wages pursuant to the aforesaid
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

8
OA No.423/2024

orders. However, the parties are at variance as to the legal
character of such engagement and the consequences flowing
therefrom. While the applicants contend that their status as direct
employees of the department already stands concluded by the
earlier judicial proceedings, the respondents contend that they
were initially engaged through a contractor, were never appointed
against sanctioned posts, and that the earlier orders conferred
upon them only the limited benefit of minimum wages/pay and did
not create any right to regularization.
18. ​ The issue with regard to the regularization of various part time
employees as well as temporary employees, who had sufficiently
long period of service to their credit came up for consideration
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo’s case
(supra), wherein by placing reliance upon the judgment in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi
and others , AIR 2006 SC 1806, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that in those cases where an employee has 10 years
of service in their credit, his/her services should be regularized so
as to avoid any prejudice to the workman. Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dharam Singh’s case (supra), while placing reliance upon the
earlier judgment in Uma Devi’s case (supra), as well as the
judgments in Jaggo’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra)
has held as under:-
“ 19 (i) Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect
from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court
directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and
a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the
appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor
establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent)
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

9
OA No.423/2024

and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent)
without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization,
each appellant shall be placed at not less than the
minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments
in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and
promotion, service shall count from the date of
regularization as given above. ”

19. ​ Further it may be noticed that in case an employee is not fulfilling
the qualification, how the said employee has been allowed to work
for a period of more than 26 years and the said employee has been
performing the duties of the post in a manner required, then such
employee has to be treated as a fit employee to work on that post
and for the purposes of regularization, such kind of hindrance qua
qualification cannot be brought into notice.
20. ​ In view of the foregoing discussion, and keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of
India , Dharam Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another and Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad , as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in CWP No. 4097 of 2019 , the present
Original Application deserves to be allowed. The applicants have
been continuously working in the respondent department since
1995–1998, and their claim for regularization is required to be
considered in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.
21. ​ Accordingly, the impugned speaking order dated 24.04.2023
(Annexure A-14) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed
to reconsider the cases of the applicants for regularization of their
services in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, keeping in view their long and continuous service and
the nature of duties performed by them. The respondents shall
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'

10
OA No.423/2024

take an appropriate decision by creating supernumerary posts, if
required, in accordance with the applicable legal principles, without
rejecting the applicants’ claims solely on the ground of
non-availability of sanctioned posts.
22. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by passing a reasoned
​
and speaking order within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequential service
and monetary benefits, if admissible, shall be determined in
accordance with the applicable rules and the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements. No order as to costs.

(ANJALI BHAWRA) ​ ​ ​ ​ (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
​ Member (A) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2026.10.30 12:54:37+05'30'