CAT has jurisdiction over regularization claims by casual employees, even without sanctioned posts.

The applicant, Pravat Suna, aged 49, has been serving as a casual MTS employee in the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur, for 25 years since November 1, 2001.

He sought regularization of his service and consequential benefits retrospectively.

The respondents did not dispute his long service or that 18 casual workers in Bhubaneswar Commissionerate were regularized on March 4, 2011, and 64 casual workers in Lucknow Commissionerate were regularized retrospectively from January 22, 2010, via order No. 130 dated February 17, 2025.

The respondents opposed the regularization, arguing that the OA was not maintainable for casual employees and that the applicant's engagement was not through a proper selection process or against a sanctioned post.

They further argued the applicant did not complete 10 years of continuous engagement by April 10, 2006, unlike those already regularized, and that the continuous performance did not confer a right to regularization.

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

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

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

The court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb (2008 INSC 592), which confirmed CAT's jurisdiction over casual employees' regularization claims.

Furthermore, the court applied the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), Dharam Singh & Others v. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018), Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2026 SCC Online SC 129), and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2026 INSC 156), which emphasize that Uma Devi does not shield against exploitation through long-term "ad hocism" and that prolonged continuous service for permanent work warrants regularization, disallowing arbitrary refusals and discrimination against similarly situated employees.

The court also invoked Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and the principle that similarly situated persons should be treated alike under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The CAT first addressed the maintainability issue, rejecting the respondents' contention based on the Supreme Court's decision in Keshab Deb.

This precedent explicitly established CAT's jurisdiction over regularization claims by casual employees, distinguishing it from Section 28 limitations.

Regarding the regularization claim, the CAT found that the Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo, Dharam Singh, Shripal, Bhola Nath, and Pawan Kumar had consistently directed regularization for employees with long, continuous service, even if their initial engagement was not through formal selection or against sanctioned posts.

These decisions clarified that Uma Devi should not be misused to perpetuate exploitation, especially when the work performed is perennial and essential.

The CAT noted the Supreme Court's emphasis on distinguishing between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, allowing regularization in the latter case for long-serving employees.

The present case involved the applicant's 25 years of continuous service, alongside the uncontroverted fact that other similarly situated casual employees within the Income Tax Department (in Bhubaneswar and Lucknow) had already been regularized.

The CAT applied the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 and the binding nature of Supreme Court precedents under Article 141 to extend the same benefit to the applicant.

The CAT further concluded that the applicant is entitled to regularization from the date others were regularized, given his long and undisputed service and the regularization of similarly situated employees.

The Respondents are directed to issue the compliance order for regularizing the applicant and granting associated benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo, Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath, and Pawan Kumar, within 90 days of receiving the order.

The OA is allowed.