Casual Employees Entitled to Regularization if Similarly Situated Individuals Were Regularized.

The applicant, Janak Pradhan, has been working as a casual MTS employee in the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax since October 9, 2001, for over 25 years.

He became overaged for seeking government employment.

The respondents did not dispute that 18 casual workers in the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized on March 4, 2011, and 64 similar casual workers in the Lucknow Commissionerate were regularized retrospectively from January 22, 2010, via an order dated February 17, 2025.

The respondents contended that the OA was not maintainable as the applicant was a casual employee and not a holder of a civil post, citing *Bhaskar Dora Vs UOI & Ors*.

They further argued that the applicant's engagement was not through a selection process or against a sanctioned post, and he did not complete 10 years of continuous engagement as of April 10, 2006, which was a criterion for regularization for others based on *Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi*.

1. Whether an Original Application filed by a casual employee seeking regularization is maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

2. Whether the applicant, engaged on a casual basis for over 25 years without a formal selection process or against a sanctioned post, is entitled to regularization and consequential benefits, including retrospective regularization

The court primarily applied Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants CAT jurisdiction over service matters, including those of casual employees.

It also relied on the principle established in *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb* (2008 INSC 592), which confirmed CAT's jurisdiction over casual employees seeking regularization.

The court further applied the principles from *Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others* (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), *Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another* (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018), *Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad* (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), and *Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors* (2026 SCC Online SC 129), which affirm regularization for long-serving employees even if initially engaged without formal process or against sanctioned posts, distinguishing these from "illegal" appointments recognized in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others* ((2006) 4 SCC 1).

Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, mandating that Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts, and Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing equality and prohibiting exploitation, were also applied.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention regarding the maintainability of the OA, citing the Supreme Court's clear pronouncements in *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb* and the Calcutta High Court's decision in *Awadhesh Singh –vs- Union of India and others*, which unequivocally established CAT's jurisdiction over regularization claims by casual employees.

The argument that initial engagement without selection or against a sanctioned post negates regularization claims was found unsustainable based on recent Supreme Court precedents, particularly *Dharam Singh Vs State of UP*, which highlighted that *Umadevi* should not be a shield for exploitation through long-term "ad hocism" or outsourcing where work is permanent and continuous.

The Supreme Court emphasized that indefinite "temporary" employment, especially by government entities, erodes public trust and denies basic rights and benefits.

The court in *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India* reiterated that *Umadevi* does not penalize long-serving employees performing essential functions and distinguished between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, finding regularization appropriate for the latter in certain circumstances.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decisions are *in rem* and Article 141 makes them binding, thus requiring similar treatment for all identically situated employees to avoid discrimination under Article 14.

It held that the applicant is entitled to regularization, considering his 25 years of continuous service and the regularization of other similarly situated casual workers in the Income Tax Department.

The respondents are directed to issue the compliance order for regularizing and granting benefits to the applicant, strictly in accordance with the law laid down in *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh & Ors.*, *Bhola Nath*, and *Pawan Kumar & Ors.* within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order, with regularization effective from the date others were regularized.

The OA was allowed.