Amar natha Vishwakarma vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS

(Reserved on 07.10.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
th
This the 27 day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Original Application No. 1067 of 2025

Amar Nath Vishwakarma, aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Ram
Kumar Vishwakarma, presently working as CP Gardner cum
Generator Operator, Naini Post Office, Prayagraj. Resident of C-

23/59, Kabirchaura, Varanasi.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Department of Post, Government of India, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, UP Circle, Lucknow.
3. Post Master General, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj.
4. Director Postal Services, office of Post Master General, Prayagraj
Region, Prayagraj.
5. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prayagraj Division,
Prayagraj.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey
ORDER
Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents,
were present at the time of hearing.
2 The instant original application has been filed seeking
following relief:
RITU RAJ
SINGH
1 | P a g e

“i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure
No A-1)
ii. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct
the respondents to issue all the benefits of regular employee on
strength of rule 154(A) of Manual of Appointments and
Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraph
Department along with all consequential benefits of pay,
promotion, financial upgradation etc as per rules.
iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in
favour of the applicant.
iv. Award the costs of the original application in favour of the
applicant.”
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant
challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the respondent no 5
through which his claim for regularization of services in regular
Group D post has been rejected on the ground that the applicant was
appointed after 01.09.1993 and as such he could not come under zone
of consideration and not eligible for regularization of services as per
Rule 154(a) of Manual of appointments and allowances of officers of
Indian Posts and Telegraph Department. Brief facts of the case as
narrated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed on
29.12.1993 on the post of C P Garnder and vide order dated
14.07.1994, the period of his working was increased from 4 hours to
7 hours a day and again vide order dated 13.03.1995, he was allowed
to work for 8 hours a day and furthermore vide order dated
30.05.1997, the applicant was allowed temporary status in terms of
DG Post Letter dated 12.04.1991 w.e.f. 01.06.1997.Till now, the
applicant is continuing on the said post. Applicant had made
representation for granting of regularization but when no decision
was taken upon the same, he approached before the Tribunal through
OA No 245 of 2017 which was disposed of at the admission stage
vide order dated 24.09.2021 directing the respondents to consider the
RITU RAJ
SINGH
2 | P a g e

claim of the applicant strictly in light of extant rules and provisions.
In compliance, the case of the applicant was rejected vide order dated
28.07.2025 on the ground that applicant has been appointed w.e.f.
29.12.1993 after the cut-off date i.e., 01.09.1993 and thus his case
does not fall in the zone of consideration. The applicant has relied
upon Circulars / OMs dated 22.06.1999, 06.04.1999 and 22.07.1999
and argued that he is continuously working on the said post till today
without any interruption and with unblemished record and therefore
his services need to be regularized along with all consequential
benefits. Applicant has also placed reliance upon the Department of P
& T OM dated 12.04.1991 saying that as per the OM, he is liable to
acquire permanent status after completion of three years of service
after grant of temporary status. Applicant is also relying upon Rule
154(a) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the
Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department which especially provides
that "selected categories of whole time contingency paid staff, such
as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Mails or Gardeners,
Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by
side with regular employees or with employees in work charged
establishment, should, for the present, be brought on to regular
establishment of which they form adjuncts and should be treated as
"regular employees". Thus, applicant has pleaded that impugned
order challenged in the OA be quashed and competent authority
amongst the respondents be directed to regularize his services in light
of the provision contained in Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments
and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs
Department.
4. Counter Affidavit have been filed by the respondents taking
similar ground as has been disclosed in the impugned order that the
applicant was appointed after cut-off date on 01.09.1993 and hence
regularization cannot be allowed to him. Respondents have also
relied upon DG Post Communication dated 12.04.1991 and has
further pleaded that casual labours recruited after 29.11.1989 and up
to 01.09.1993 can only be considered for grant of benefit under the
RITU RAJ
SINGH
3 | P a g e

scheme. Since applicant’s appointment is after the cut-off date, his
services cannot be regularized. Thus, has pleaded that the OA be
dismissed on the ground that there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned order.
5. I have heard the rival parties and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was appointed on the post of CP Gardner on the basis of appointment
letter issued by the competent authority and he has not committed
any fraud or deceit to obtain the same. He is qualified for the said
post and has been working on the said post for more than 30 years
now and is continuously working on the said post. It is further argued
that although the post of CP Chowkidar / CP Gardner, etc. are dying
cadre post(s) yet applicant’s prayer simply on this ground cannot be
turned down. He has also argued that if the ground taken by the
respondents that the applicant has been appointed after the cut-off
date i.e., 01.09.1993 is taken into consideration, then also, in view of
the settled principle of law in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma
Devi reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806 and in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs M L Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9
Supreme Court Cases 247, as well as in view of the recent judgments
pronounced by different judicial forums across the country, the
applicant is entitled for temporary status as well as pensionary
benefits in light of provisions contained in para Rule 154(a) of
Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian
Posts and Telegraphs Department. Thus, argued to allow the OA and
to grant the relief claimed by the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that although the
applicant is continuously working till today and was also allowed
temporary status but he cannot be allowed regularization because his
appointment was made after the cut-off date i.e., 01.09.1993.
Applicant cannot take the benefit of the provision of Rule 154(a) of
Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian
Posts and Telegraphs Department as only those casual labours / CP
Chowkidar who were appointed up to 29.11.1989 or up to 01.09.1993
RITU RAJ
SINGH
4 | P a g e

have been allowed said benefit of temporary status as well as
pension. Learned counsel further argued that just because applicant
has already been granted temporary status and he has been
continuously working in the department for more than 30 years now,
his services cannot be simply regularized on this ground. To
substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the respondents
referred to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit and further
argued that OA lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
8. Rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned
counsel for the applicant argued that the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by several judicial pronouncements given by
different courts across the country and thus has placed reliance upon
following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 03.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of State of Karnataka And Others Vs M L
Kesari and Others reported in 2010 9 Supreme Court Cases 247.
ii. Judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 titled Narendra
Kumar Tiwari &Ors Vs The State of Jharkhand &Ors.
iii. Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs State of UP &
Another reported in 2025 INSC 998.
iv. Judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Shripal&Anr Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
reported in 2025 INSC 144.
v. Judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India and Others
reported in 2024 INSC 1034
vi. Judgment dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Bhola Nath vs The State of Jharkhand &
Ors reported in 2026 INSC 99
vii. Judgment dated 29.04.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Union of India and Another Vs Mohan Pal
Etc reported in 2002 (3) SCR 613
viii. Judgment dated 17.10.2017passed by Allahabad Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 1710 of 2014
titled Chhotey Lal Vs Union of India and others.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
5 | P a g e

9. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused
the records and case laws relied upon.
10. Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will
be useful to quote the relevant portion of case laws cited and relied
upon by the contesting parties.
i. Referring to the case of M L Kesari (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, 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 regularization process. On the other hand, some
Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time
exercise excluding several employees from 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, will not lose their right to
be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise
was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month
period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time
exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those 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, but did
not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit
of para 53 of Umadevi, 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 Umadevi, are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is twofold.
First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of
continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts
or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are
considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to
ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the
practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long
periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they
have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional
or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. 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) 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
regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such
exercise of regularization within sixmonths of the decision in Umadevi or
that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will
not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for
regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time
measure.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
6 | P a g e

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the
decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not
considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months
of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of
respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only
further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila
Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a
general one-time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are
any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and
if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the
requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their
services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been
undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3
because of the pendency of thesecases, then their cases shall have to be
considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three
months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the
requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be
regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do
not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the
time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in
suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
ii. Referring to the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra),
learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon following
portion:
“8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore
two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the
future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been
irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand
continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the
decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was
all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required,
terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the
ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of
exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head.
This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.
9. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision
of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into
consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of
Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence
only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th
April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of
indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be
perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
10. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have
considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from
the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise – the
interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has
eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the
process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an
RITU RAJ
irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
SINGH
7 | P a g e

11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation
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
Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service
rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should
be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation
like misconduct etc.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set
aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within
four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants.
13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
14. We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of
Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and
dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit
the process of regular appointments.”
iii. Referring to the case of Dharam Singh (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the
admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating
vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants
shall stand regularized with effectfrom 24.04.2002, the date on which the
High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a
fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For
this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or
preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not
less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be
entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay
grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of
regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as
arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances
at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time,
and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until
the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts
already paid under previous interim directions shall beso adjusted. The
net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the
unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the
date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be
granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and
recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised
pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other
RITU RAJ appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on
SINGH
8 | P a g e

record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death,
together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with
clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent
authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within
four months of this Judgement.”
iv. Referring to the case of Shripal(supra), learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of
the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law
principles. Once it is established that their services wereterminated
without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While
concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules
merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of
statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed,
bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen
who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the
Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity
or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following
directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected
without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant
Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the dateof their
termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in
service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in
their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously
performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire
period of absence (from the date of termination until actual
reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all
consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if
any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be
entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation
until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and
transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six
months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they
have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In
assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were neverapplied
to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in
RITU RAJ the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or
SINGH
9 | P a g e

are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary
administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not
indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.”
v. Referring to the case of Jaggo (supra), learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“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 longterm obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"even when their roles
mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their
roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not
only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
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 itsprinciples 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. 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
RITU RAJ Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
SINGH
10 | P a g e

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.
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, 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.”
vi. Referring to the case of Mohan Pal (supra), learned counsel for
the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“The first question is to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of
clause 4 of the Scheme. As already noticed, the scheme came into effect
from 1.9.1993. Clause 4(1) of the Scheme reads as follows:-
'temporary' status-(1) 'temporary' status would be conferred on all casual
labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and
who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which
means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days
(206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week). "
Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of 'temporary'
status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as
on the date of commencement of the Scheme. Some of the Central
Administrative Tribunals took the view that this is an ongoing Scheme
and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year
or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled
to get 'temporary' status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme
envisages it as an ongoing Scheme. In order to acquire 'temporary'
status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the
date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered a
continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have
been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in
case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it
does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of
giving 'temporary' status to all the casual workers, as and when they
complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union
Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary
that the casual labourers are to be given 'temporary' status and later they
are to be absorbed in Group 'D' posts.
The second question that arises for consideration is whether the casual
labourers who have been given 'temporary' status can be removed from
service by giving notice as per clause 7 of the Scheme. It is true that by
conferment of 'temporary' status, the casual labourers acquire certain
rights. Their daily rates of wages will be on the pro rata basis of salary
and allowances payable to the employees working under the Group 'D'
RITU RAJ
SINGH
11 | P a g e

posts. They are also eligible for the casual and other kinds of leave.
Oncompletion of 3 years' continuous service after conferment of
'temporary' status, they would be admitted to the General Provident
Fund. They are entitled to get Festival Advance and Flood Advance and
other welfare measures applicable to the Group 'D' employees. Clause 7
of the Scheme makes it clear that despite the conferment of 'temporary'
status, the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving
one month notice in writing. This clause would certainly give the
employer the right to terminate the services of casual labourers who have
been given 'temporary' status.
The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition (CT) No.
86/99 (T. Rajakili and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., etc. etc.) held that
Clause 7 must be read in a manner in which it does not render it
unconstitutional. The employers cannot at their whims dispense with the
services of the casual labourers who have acquired 'temporary' status.
The entire object of 1993 Scheme was to regularise all casual workers.
To allow such uncanalised power of termination would also defeat the
object of the Scheme. Dispensing with the services of a casual labourer
under clause 7 in our view, could be for mis-conduct etc. Having regard
to the general scheme of 1993, we are also of the view that the casual
labourers who acquire 'temporary' status cannot be removed merely on
the whims and fancies of the employer. If there is sufficient work and
other casual labourers are still to be employed by the employer for
carrying out the work, the casual labourers who have acquired
'temporary' status shall not be removed from service as per clause 7 of
the Scheme. If there is serious misconduct or violation of service rules, it
would be open to the employer to dispense with the services of a casual
labourer who had acquired the 'temporary' status.
In Civil Appeals Nos. 3170-3171, 3172-73, 3174-75 and 3180/2000
arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6738-6739/2000, SLP (Civil) Nos. 6740-41
and 6742-43/2000 and SLP (Civil) No. 970/2001, the Division Bench of
the High Court of Calcutta held that the termination of the services of the
employees was not legal and was based on various extraneous grounds.
We do not propose to interfere with the same.
In Civil Appeals Nos. 3168, 3182, 3179, 3176-78, 3169 of 2002 arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 2224/2000, SLP(Civil) No. 13024/2001, SLP(Civil)
No. 1563/2001, SLP(Civil) No. 17174-17176/2000, SLP(Civil) No. 21517
2000, the respondents have been given 'temporary' status, even though,
they did not specifically fulfil the condition in clause 4 of the Scheme.
Some of them were engaged by the Department even after the
commencement of the Scheme. But these casual labourers had also
rendered service for more than one year and they were not given
'temporary' status pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. We do
not propose to interfere with the same at this distance of time. However,
we make it clear that the Scheme of 1.9.1993 is not an ongoing Scheme
and the 'temporary' status can be conferred on the casual labourers
under that Scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in
Clause 4 of the Scheme, namely, they should have been casual labourers
in employment as on the date of the commencement of the Scheme and
they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e., at
least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a
week). We also make it clear that those who have already been given
RITU RAJ
SINGH
12 | P a g e

'temporary' status on the assumption that it is an ongoing Scheme shall
not be stripped of the 'temporary' status pursuant to our decision.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”
vii. Referring to the case of Chhotey Lal (supra), learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance upon following portion:
“2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the OA are that the
applicant was, initially appointed as Full time C.P. Chaukidar in non-test
category on 3.7.1970, against the sanctioned post and posted at Post
Office Hadia, District.
2.1 The appointment of the applicant was made strictly in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 154(a) of the Manual for Pay and Allowances
to the officers of P & T Department.
2.2 In the year 1989, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided a case of
Daily Rated Casual Labourers vs. Union of India and vide Order dated
29.11.1989 directed the respondents’ department to frame a scheme for
grant of temporary status followed with regularization to those of casual
labourers who has completed one year’s regular service with 240/206
working days in a calendar year.
2.3 Consequent to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the
respondents had introduced a Scheme dated 12.4.1991, known as
“Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation)
Scheme” to the effect that temporary status employee would be conferred
on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989 and who
continue to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service
of at least one year and after rendering three years of service after
conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated at
par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for the purpose of contribution
of General Provident Fund etc. The Scheme further provides that the
casual labourers may be regularised in units, subject to availability of
vacancies and no recruitment from open market for Group D’ post,
except compassionate appointment will be done till such casual labourers
are available to fill up the post in question.
---
10. Thus, considering the case in hand and earlier case of Shyam Lal
Shukla which was also affirmed by the Apex Court, it is not disputed that
applicant was engaged as contingency paid chowkidar and was granted
temporary status and respondents provides all the benefits to the
applicant as admissible to regular Group D employees and applicant
also retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. at the age of 60
years. He was also not granted pensionary and retiral benefits on the
sole defence that vacancy was not available and he was not a regular
employee. However, the applicant is entitled for the benefits under Rule
154 of the Manual of appointment and allowances. The Hon’ble High
Court on perusal of the Rule 154 of the aforesaid manual in its judgment
dated 23.12.2011 has held as follows:-
“From the perusal of Rule 154 A of Manual, it is manifestly clear that the
Chowkidar, Sweeper, Mails, Khalasis who worked side by side with
regular or with employees in work charge establishment should be
brought on regular establishment and should be treated regular
employees. The Rule itself has used the work ‘regular employee’ without
any reference to formal order of regularization. The Tribunal has relied
RITU RAJ on Rule 154 A of the Manual of appointment and allowances of the
SINGH
13 | P a g e

officers of Indian Post and Telegraphs Department. It is, undisputed fact
that the respondent no. 1 has worked and has received the payment from
contingent fund w.e.f. 10.4.1982 to 26.11.1989 i.e. seven years six months
and nineteen days, thereafter, from the consolidated fund of Central
Govt. from 26.11.1989 to 29.11.1992 three years and then from
30.11.1992 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2003 as temporary Govt.
employee of Group D for ten years seven months and one day. The total
qualifying service for pension comes to 17 years four months and 10
days.”
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has further held as under:-
“In our view the said Rule clearly spells out its essential purpose to give
pensionary benefit to certain class of employees as regular employee
notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was
passed.”
11. Thus, relying upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in afore
mentioned OAs and confirmed by the High Court as well as by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant is also entitled for similar benefits as
granted to applicants of that O.As. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed.
Respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post
retiral benefits to the applicant along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.”
11. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant was
appointed on 29.12.1993 on the post of C P Garnder. He was allowed
temporary status but has not been allowed the benefit of
regularization of services on the ground that he was appointed after
the cut-off date i.e., 01.09.1993 and his case was rejected vide
impugned order dated 28.07.2025.
12. The applicant is a Contingency Paid Gardner. Later the post of
all such casual labours (CP Chowkidar, CP Gardner, etc.) have been
declared as dying cadre and no fresh appointment is being made in
the said cadre. As has been disclosed hereinabove, the applicant was
appointed on 29.12.1993 and vide Memo(s) dated 01.03.1993,
04.02.1997 and 14.02.2002 etc., it was specifically mentioned that no
casual labour shall be engaged in future. All the CP Chowkidars, CP
Gardners, etc. who have been allowed temporary status on
29.11.1989 taking recourse to the provision of Rule 154(a) of Manual
of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and
Telegraphs Department have been allowed for pensionary benefits on
the basis of deemed regularization. Applicant has worked for more
than 240 days. In Uma Devi (supra) case, an exception was
RITU RAJ
SINGH
14 | P a g e

propounded regarding regularization of irregularly appointed
employees who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned
post but not under covers of orders of the Court or of the Tribunal. In
light of the direction given by the Apex Court, almost all the
departments of Union of India, State Governments and their
instrumentalities have undergone the exercise for regularization of
such irregularly appointed employees. After the said exercise, when a
number of such type of irregularly appointed employees could not be
considered, some of them approached before the Tribunal and that
matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M L
Kesari (supra) wherein the Apex Court directed to undertake a further
exercise within six months as a general one time regularization
exercise to find out whether there are any daily wager / casual / ad
hoc employees serving the Zilla Panchayat and if so whether such
employees (including the respondents therein) fulfill the requirements
mentioned in para 3 of the Uma Devi (supra) case. If they fulfill the
same, their services have to be regularized. The present applicant
although appointed in the year 1993 but was being paid the salary
attached to the CP Gardner regularly in each and every month and he
was also performing the duty of C P Gardner as was performed by
the erstwhile regular Gardners who have been given benefit of Rule
154(a) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the
Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. In the present case, if the
applicant was appointed in the year 1993 and is continuously
working till today on the same post with the same emoluments and
exercise had been done by the respondents in light of Uma Devi
(supra) case to regularize the services of the applicant, he would have
been regularized especially taking into consideration the fact that he
has already been granted temporary status. If, in any situation,
exercise could not be made by the respondents, in light of the Uma
Devi (supra) case, the respondents ought to have undertaken the
exercise in light of M L Kesari (supra) case. If the aforesaid reason to
regularize the services of the applicant are not taken into
consideration, then also, in light of the direction given by the Apex
RITU RAJ
SINGH
15 | P a g e

Court, when the applicant is continuously performing the duties of a
regular employee and is also receiving regular salary of the said post
(for about 32 years), the case of the applicant is liable to be allowed.
13. Thus, in view of the settled position of law which is evident
from the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant which have been quoted in the earlier paragraphs, I am of
the view that the applicant’s services may be treated as regularized.
He cannot be left in the hands of the respondents without any future
prospect and social security as he is performing perennial duties akin
to permanent post. Thus, when the post of C P Gardner is a dying
cadre post, although no specific direction can be given to the
respondents to regularize the services of the applicant on the post of
C P Gardner, yet, specific direction can be given to the respondents
to grant pensionary benefits at par with those C P Gardners whose
services were deemed to have been regularized and pensionary
benefits have been extended to them taking recourse to the provision
of Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointments and Allowances of
Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. Thus, the
OA is allowed and impugned order dated 28.07.2025 is hereby
quashed and set aside. Respondents are hereby directed to extend the
pensionary benefits (Old Pension Scheme) to the applicant after he
attains the age of superannuation especially because the respondents
have already granted temporary status to the applicant.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.









(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)

(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
16 | P a g e