Nearly 3 Decades On Daily Wages: CAT Orders CGST To Reconsider 3 Workers’ Regularisation, Not Reject It Solely For Lack Of Posts

The applicants had worked as daily-wage “Farash” employees in the CGST Department since 1995–1998.

Earlier proceedings resulted in their being treated as direct employees for certain purposes and receiving the minimum of the applicable pay scale, but their services were not regularised.

The respondents rejected their 2023 claim for regularisation and temporary status, citing, among other grounds, the absence of sanctioned posts and the applicants’ alleged engagement through a contractor.

The applicants challenged that rejection before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, treating those decisions as requiring consideration of long-serving temporary or daily-wage workers for regularisation and, where appropriate, permitting creation of supernumerary posts.

The Tribunal also relied on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 4097 of 2019.

It considered the respondents’ reliance on the applicable recruitment rules and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, but did not accept the absence of sanctioned posts as a sufficient basis, by itself, to reject the applicants’ claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had served continuously for approximately 26–29 years and were still working on a daily-wage basis, with minimum-pay benefits granted following earlier litigation.

Applying its reading of Jaggo, Dharam Singh and Shripal, it held that their lengthy service and the duties performed warranted reconsideration of their regularisation claims.

It further considered that the respondents should not reject the claims solely for want of sanctioned posts and that qualifications should not be treated as an insurmountable bar after such prolonged service.

The Tribunal did not itself determine that the applicants were entitled to regularisation; it directed a fresh decision.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicants’ regularisation claims in light of the cited judgments, their continuous service and the nature of their duties, and to consider creating supernumerary posts if required.

The respondents must pass a reasoned order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the decision; consequential benefits are to be determined under applicable rules and the cited judgments.

No order as to costs.