Competent authority must decide regularisation claims and extend parity benefits upon verifying similarly situated casual labourers.

The 174 applicants claimed to have worked as casual labourers under the Income Tax Department for approximately two decades and to have rendered uninterrupted service.

They submitted a common representation dated 10 March 2026 to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Sikkim, seeking regularisation and consequential benefits on the basis of Supreme Court decisions concerning similarly situated casual labourers, including Jaggo v. Union of India, Anita v. Union of India, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Shri Pal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India.

As the representation had not been considered, the applicants approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia, regularisation, continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits.

The application for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was allowed.

During hearing, the applicants limited their immediate prayer to a direction for consideration of their representation, while the respondents stated that they had no objection, subject to verification of each individual case.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ pending representation seeking regularisation in light of the cited Supreme Court judgments, particularly Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, and pass a reasoned decision within a stipulated period.

Whether the applicants should be granted the same regularisation benefits as the employees covered by the cited Supreme Court decisions, subject to verification that they are similarly situated.

Whether the applicants’ service should be protected by directing the respondents to maintain status quo pending disposal of their representation.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

The joint prosecution of the applicants was permitted under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The Tribunal relied upon the principle of non-discrimination in regularisation applied by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., where it was held that employees similarly situated to those whose services had been regularised could not be discriminated against by the Income Tax Department.

The cited precedents were not treated as automatically conferring regularisation; entitlement remained subject to verification of the individual applicants’ similarity with the beneficiaries of those judgments.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ substantive entitlement to regularisation.

Since the applicants’ representation dated 10 March 2026 remained undecided, and the respondents consented to its consideration subject to verification of individual cases, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine the representation in light of the cited Supreme Court judgments.

In particular, the Tribunal noted the principle in Pawan Kumar that the Income Tax Department could not discriminate against employees similarly situated to those whose services had been regularised.

However, because similarity of service conditions and other relevant facts had not been established on the record, the Tribunal left the merits open and made the grant of benefits conditional upon individual verification.

Interim protection was granted through a direction to maintain status quo until the representation was decided.

Respondent No. 4, or another competent authority, was directed to consider the applicants’ representation dated 10 March 2026, treating the Original Application as part of that representation, in light of the cited judgments, specifically Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking order within 12 weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The respondents were further directed to maintain status quo concerning the applicants until disposal of the representation.

If, after verification, the applicants were found to be similarly situated to the employees covered by the cited judgments, the respondents were directed to extend the corresponding benefits to them.

All points on merits were kept open, and no costs were awarded.