Similarly situated long-serving casual employees must be regularized on parity with regularized workers.

Arjun Swain was engaged on a casual basis in the Income Tax Department and, according to the Tribunal, had served continuously since 16 July 2012.

He sought regularization, relying in part on the regularization of 64 similarly situated casual workers in the Lucknow Commissionerate, retrospectively effective from 22 January 2010.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing, among other things, that Swain’s engagement was neither through a selection process nor against a sanctioned post, and that he did not qualify for regularization under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The Tribunal considered Supreme Court decisions on long-serving casual employees and a prior decision of the same Bench concerning another casual employee.

Whether Swain’s prolonged, uninterrupted casual service entitled him to regularization despite the respondents’ objections concerning the manner of engagement and absence of a sanctioned post.

Whether denying Swain regularization, when similarly situated casual workers had been regularized, would amount to unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal relied on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, applying the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive equal treatment and that differential treatment may be discriminatory.

It referred to Article 141 as making the law declared by the Supreme Court binding.

It considered Uma Devi, which distinguishes illegal appointments from irregular engagements and addresses regularization of qualifying long-serving employees as a one-time measure, alongside later Supreme Court decisions—including Jaggo, Dharam Singh, Shripal, Raman Kumar, Ushaben Joshi, Bhola Nath and Pawan Kumar—which the Tribunal understood to support relief in cases involving prolonged service, perennial work, or unequal treatment of similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal also relied on the Lucknow Commissionerate regularization order and its own earlier decision in Pradyumna Dehury v. Union of India & Ors.

The Tribunal treated Swain’s uninterrupted service since July 2012 and the regularization of 64 casual workers in the Lucknow Commissionerate as decisive circumstances.

It concluded that the Supreme Court authorities prevented the respondents from relying mechanically on the absence of a selection process or sanctioned post to deny relief, particularly where similarly situated casual workers had received regularization.

The Tribunal also considered its earlier order in Pradyumna Dehury, which it said had been upheld by the Orissa High Court, as supporting consistent treatment.

It directed the respondents to issue a regularization order consistent with the cited Supreme Court decisions and the Lucknow order within 90 days of receiving a copy of the judgment.

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