Long-serving casual employees cannot be denied regularization when similarly situated workers have been regularized.

The four applicants were working as Casual Workers (Group-D) in offices of the Income Tax Department and had allegedly served continuously and uninterruptedly since 2009/2010.

They sought quashing of the disengagement order dated 18 June 2025 issued against Applicant No. 1 shortly after filing the Original Application, and sought retrospective regularisation with consequential service and financial benefits.

Their claim was founded, inter alia, on the Department’s regularisation of 64 similarly situated casual workers by order dated 17 February 2025, retrospectively from 22 January 2010.

The respondents contested the application on the grounds that casual workers did not hold civil posts, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, their engagement was neither against sanctioned posts nor through a regular selection process, and they were not entitled to regularisation under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to entertain an Original Application filed by casual employees seeking regularisation.

Whether the applicants, despite their initial casual engagement and alleged absence of sanctioned posts or a regular selection process, were entitled to regularisation on the basis of long and continuous service and parity with similarly situated workers.

Whether the disengagement of Applicant No. 1 after the filing of the Original Application was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, holding that the CAT’s jurisdiction extends to service matters involving casual employees, relying on Department of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb and Awadhesh Singh v. Union of India.

It considered the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, and relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi for the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the possibility of regularisation in appropriate cases.

The Tribunal further relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Raman Kumar v. Union of India, Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India for the principles that prolonged temporary engagement for perennial work cannot be used to defeat regularisation claims, outsourcing or temporary labels cannot perpetuate exploitative employment, and similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment.

The Tribunal also invoked Article 141, observing that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding and that similarly situated employees should ordinarily be treated alike.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ jurisdictional objection because Keshab Deb recognised the CAT’s authority to decide service claims brought by casual employees, including claims for regularisation.

On the merits, it treated the applicants’ uninterrupted service since 2009/2010, the recurring nature of their work, their alleged overage due to prolonged engagement, and the Department’s regularisation of 64 similarly situated casual workers as establishing an actionable case of unequal treatment.

Applying the recent Supreme Court authorities, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not rely mechanically on the absence of an initial selection process or sanctioned posts to deny relief where the work was perennial and the Department had itself regularised comparable workers.

The abrupt disengagement of Applicant No. 1, particularly after institution of the proceedings and while retaining later-engaged workers, was found arbitrary and discriminatory.

Consistent with Jaggo, the Tribunal denied back wages for the period during which Applicant No. 1 did not work, but preserved continuity for seniority and post-retiral benefits.

The disengagement order dated 18 June 2025 concerning Applicant No. 1 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate him within 15 days of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

He was held not entitled to back wages or other pecuniary benefits for the period he had not worked, but that period was to count for seniority and post-retiral benefits.

The respondents were further directed to issue compliance orders regularising all four applicants in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the Tribunal, within 90 days of receipt of the order.

The parties were left to bear their own costs and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.