CAT has jurisdiction over casual employees' regularization claims.

The applicant, Sanjay Kumar Behera, was engaged on a casual basis in the Income Tax Department from July 7, 1996, to February 1998, and then continuously from January 7, 2003, until the date of the judgment, totaling over 24 years of service.

During this period, 18 other casual workers in the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized on March 4, 2011, and 64 casual workers in the Lucknow Commissionerate were regularized retrospectively from January 22, 2010, via an order dated February 17, 2025.

The applicant sought regularization and consequential benefits, arguing discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents contested the application, asserting that the applicant, as a casual employee, was not a holder of a civil post and thus the Original Application (OA) was not maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), citing *Bhaskar Dora Vs UOI & Ors* (W.P(C) No. 4601/2003).

They also argued the applicant was not engaged through a selection process or against a sanctioned post, and had not completed 10 years of continuous engagement by April 10, 2006, as required by *Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi* ((2006) 4 SCC 1).

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

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization, despite not being engaged through a selection process or against a sanctioned post, given his long continuous service and the regularization of similarly situated casual workers

The court primarily applied Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants CAT jurisdiction over service matters, including those of casual employees classified as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It relied on *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb* (2008 INSC 592) and *Awadhesh Singh –vs- Union of India and others* (W.P No. 21119 (W) of 2011) to affirm CAT's jurisdiction.

For regularization, the court referred to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, binding the law declared by the Supreme Court on all courts, and the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated individuals under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It cited *Dharam Singh Vs State of UP* (2025 INSC 998), which distinguished between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and cautioned against using *Umadevi (Supra)* as a shield against regularization for long-term "ad hocism" or exploitation where work is permanent.

Essential precedents included *Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others* (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), *Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad* (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), *Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors* (2026 SCC OnLine SC 129), and *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India* (2026 INSC 156), which directed regularization for long-serving casual employees, emphasizing that outsourcing cannot be a shield against fair engagement practices.

The Tribunal first addressed the maintainability of the OA, overruling the respondents' objection by citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb*.

This precedent established that CAT has jurisdiction over service matters concerning casual employees, particularly those classified as workmen.

Regarding regularization, the Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's consistent stance in *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh*, *Shripal*, and *Bhola Nath*, where positive directions for regularization were issued despite initial engagements not being through a selection process or against sanctioned posts.

The court highlighted the Supreme Court's differentiation between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments as per *Umadevi* and its admonition against using *Umadevi* to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism" when the work is permanent.

Since the applicant had served for over 24 years discharging essential duties and similarly situated casual workers in the same and other commissionerates had been regularized, the Court found the denial of regularization discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16.

The judgment in *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India*, specifically concerning Income Tax Department casual employees, reinforced that procedural formalities cannot deny substantive rights accrued over long, continuous service, and that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against.

It further held that the applicant is entitled to regularization from the date other similarly situated casual employees were regularized.

The respondents were directed to issue a compliance order for regularizing the applicant and granting all benefits in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh*, *Bhola Nath*, and *Pawan Kumar* within 90 days of receiving the order.

The OA was allowed to this extent.