![Authorities must reconsider long-serving casual employees’ regularisation claims in light of recent Supreme Court precedents.. K KUMARESAN vs M/o Finance. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-reconsider-long-serving-casual-employees-regularisation-claims-in-light-o-8c55d53031e5428d916e51ce51607f59.webp)
Facts
The applicants had worked as casual/daily-wage MTS employees at the Chennai office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal since 2009 and 2011. Their earlier applications for regularisation were dismissed by the CAT in 2013, and the Madras High Court upheld that dismissal in 2016, while not preventing their continued service on a casual basis.
Source reference: p. 2–4, 11–12After submitting fresh representations seeking regularisation in March 2024, the applicants approached the CAT, relying on their long service and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The respondents maintained that the applicants had been engaged temporarily, not against sanctioned posts, and that their regularisation claim had already been rejected.
Source reference: p. 4–10Issues
Whether the applicants were entitled to regularisation in light of their long service and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions relied upon.
Source reference: p. 10–12Law Applied
The CAT considered the principles in *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi* (2006) 4 SCC 1, including paragraph 53, which contemplates a one-time measure for regularising certain irregular—not illegal—appointments of duly qualified persons who have served for ten years or more without the intervention of a court.
Source reference: p. 6, 13–14It also considered the later Supreme Court decisions cited in the order, including *State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari*, *Jaggo v. Union of India*, *Shripal v. Nagar Nigam* and *Rupesh R. Gaonkar v. State of Goa*, as addressing the application of *Umadevi* to long-serving temporary employees.
Source reference: p. 7, 12–14Reasoning
The applicants’ earlier regularisation claim had been rejected by the CAT and that decision affirmed by the High Court. However, the CAT noted that the law on regularisation had since developed and considered the applicants’ reliance on more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Source reference: p. 11–15Rather than decide whether the applicants’ appointments met the relevant requirements for regularisation, the CAT left that assessment to the respondents, requiring them to consider the claim afresh and issue a reasoned order. The CAT also directed the applicants to provide the judgments on which they relied.
Source reference: p. 15Holding
The CAT did not grant regularisation or finally decide the applicants’ entitlement to it. It disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to reconsider the applicants’ regularisation claim in light of the latest Supreme Court decisions and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the order.
The applicants were directed to provide the relevant judgments with their representation. No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 15–16Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
K KUMARESANvsM/o Finance
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
