CAT has jurisdiction over regularization claims of casual employees.

The applicant, Hrusikesh Sahoo, aged 50 years, has been serving as a casual MTS employee in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal, since October 1, 1998, continuously for 27 years.

He became overaged to seek other general government employment.

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

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

They also argued that the applicant's initial engagement was not through a selection process or against a sanctioned post, and he did not complete 10 years of continuous engagement by April 10, 2006, as stipulated by *Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi*.

The applicant, through his counsel, claimed entitlement to regularization and all consequential benefits retrospectively, citing various Supreme Court decisions, including *Jaggo v. Union of India and Others* and *Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another*, asserting discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has the jurisdiction to entertain an Original Application filed by a casual employee seeking regularization.

2. Whether the applicant, a casual employee engaged without a formal selection process or against a sanctioned post, is entitled to regularization, given his long tenure 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 concerning casual employees, as clarified by the Supreme Court in *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb* (2008 INSC 592).

It also relied on the principle that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring legal uniformity and consistency.

The court further applied the jurisprudential standard that similarly situated persons must be treated alike to prevent discrimination, especially in service matters, consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Crucially, the court emphasized that the principles from *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others,* (2006) 4 SCC 1, cannot be used to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism" or to deny regularization where work is permanent and employees have served for decades, as reiterated in *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), *Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad* (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), *Dharam Singh Vs State of UP* (2025 INSC 998), and *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India* (2026 INSC 156).

These precedents establish that where appointments are "irregular" (not illegal), and employees have served continuously for significant periods performing perennial functions, they are entitled to regularization as a one-time measure, and procedural formalities cannot perpetually deny substantive rights.

The Tribunal first addressed the maintainability issue, relying on *Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb* which unequivocally held that CAT possesses jurisdiction over casual employees seeking regularization under Section 14 of the A.T. Act, 1985, thereby overruling the respondents' contention.

Regarding the entitlement to regularization, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' arguments about the lack of selection process or sanctioned posts, citing a series of Supreme Court judgments.

Specifically, *Dharam Singh Vs State of UP* clarified that *Umadevi* does not prevent regularization where there is continuous reliance on a workforce for decades and the work is permanent, emphasizing the distinction between illegal and irregular engagements.

The Supreme Court in *Jaggo* and *Shripal* cautioned against using *Umadevi* as a shield for exploitation through prolonged "ad hocism" or outsourcing for perennial work, noting that ignoring such claims undermines public trust and violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

The court also highlighted that previous regularization of 18 workers in Bhubaneswar Commissionerate and 64 in Lucknow Commissionerate created an obligation to treat the applicant similarly, especially given his 27 years of continuous service, referencing *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India* which held that similarly situated individuals cannot be discriminated against.

The argument that the applicant did not complete 10 years by April 10, 2006, was implicitly rejected by the broader principles established in *Jaggo* and *Dharam Singh*, which recognize accrued rights from long, continuous service performing essential functions, irrespective of initial engagement terms.

It further concluded that the applicant is entitled to regularization, stating that the continuous service of 27 years, coupled with the regularization of similarly situated casual workers, warrants the same benefit.

The respondents were directed to issue an order regularizing the applicant and granting him all consequential benefits retrospectively, with effect from the date others were regularized, strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh & Ors.*, *Bhola Nath*, and *Pawan Kumar & Ors.*

This compliance order must be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order.

The OA was allowed to the extent stated.