AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
In the instant OA the applicants are seeking the following relief:
“ to direct the 1 and 2 respondents Tribunal to continue the applicants in service as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.9316/2014 and to direct the 1 and 2 respondents to consider and to absorb them as permanent employees in the 1 respondents Tribunal with all consequently benefits including monetary benefits and to count the service rendered in the post of MTS on casual basis for the purpose of pension, terminal benefits and all other benefits from the date of initial appointment and to pass such further order or other orders as this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and award cost and thus render justice”.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The 1st Applicant joined the services of the 2nd Respondent Tribunal on 09.03.2009, and the 2nd Applicant joined on 01.06.2011. Both Applicants have been continuously working in the 2nd Respondent Tribunal without any break in service. In 2012, apprehending that their services would be terminated and replaced by a fresh set of casual employees, the Applicants approached this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 573 and 630 of 2012, seeking regularization of their services. However, by Order dated 10.06.2013, the Tribunal rejected their claim on the ground that they did not satisfy the parameters laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC. Despite the dismissal of the O.As., the Applicants continued in service without any break. Apprehending termination, they challenged the Tribunal’s Order before the Hon’ble High Court. On 28.03.2014, the Hon’ble High Court protected their employment and permitted them to continue as MTS employees. Subsequently, by Order dated 10.11.2016, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the rejection of regularization, while protecting their continuance in service on a casual basis. The Applicants could not challenge the said Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to their financial constraints. The Applicants have continued in service uninterruptedly till date. They are now aged about 42 years and, having crossed the maximum age limits prescribed for most Government employment, face serious difficulty in securing alternative employment. On 13.03.2024, the Applicants submitted representations to the 1st Respondent seeking regularization in view of their long and continuous service. However, the 1st Respondent has initiated steps to dispense with their services and replace them with contract employees. Such replacement of one set of casual employees by another on fresh terms and conditions is contrary to law and the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. The Applicants submit that their services cannot be terminated without due notice and compensation in accordance with applicable labour law. Further, in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon’ble High Court had protected their employment and directed their continuance in service. The said Order has attained finality between the parties and cannot now be acted upon to the prejudice of the Applicants. The proposed outsourcing/replacement of the Applicants by contract employees amounts to an unfair labour practice and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Applicants further submit that no decision or order has yet been passed by the 1st Respondent on their representations dated 13.03.2024. Having exhausted the remedies available under the applicable service rules and having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the Applicants are constrained to approach this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking appropriate directions to the Respondents not to dispense with their services as casual MTS employees, to continue them without interruption, and to consider their absorption/regularization in the services of the Tribunal within a time frame fixed by this Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the 1st Respondent cannot replace one set of casual employees with another, which is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the Applicants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment as Peons, subsequently re-designated as Multi Task Staff (MTS), and have discharged their duties without any adverse remark for more than 15 and 13 years respectively.
It was further submitted that the 1st Respondent failed to consider that, while rejecting the Applicants’ prayer for regularization, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court had protected their continuance in service. It was also pointed out that there are 14 sanctioned posts in the MTS cadre, of which 8 are occupied by regular employees and the remaining 6 posts are being manned by casual employees, including the Applicants.
The learned counsel further submitted that casual employees engaged at other Benches of the Tribunal have been regularized, whereas the Applicants have been denied similar treatment despite having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. This, according to the Applicants, amounts to discriminatory and selective treatment. It was further contended that, having completed more than 15 and 13 years of uninterrupted service respectively, the Applicants fall within the exception contemplated under paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi.
It was lastly submitted that the Applicants are now aged about 42 years and have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for Government employment, making it extremely difficult for them to secure alternative employment. The 1st Applicant belongs to a Reserved Community and the 2nd Applicant belongs to a Backward Community. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned action of the Respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and is consequently illegal and unconstitutional.
He relied upon the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contentions to grant the relief sought by the applicants:
State of Karnataka Vs ML Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCR 543;
Manish Gupta & others Vs President, Jan Bhagidari Sammiti, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 540;
Jagoo Vs Union of India & others, reported in 2025 AIR SC 296;
Shripal & others Vs Nagar Nigam, reported in 2025 INSC 144;
Sharam Singh Vs State of UP, reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 3897;
Rupesh R. Gaonkar & others Vs State of Goa, reported in 2025 INSC 792.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. R. M. Priyadharsini, vehemently opposed the submissions of the Applicants and relied upon the reply statement. She submitted that the Applicants were engaged in the office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, as daily-wage workers in 2009 and 2011 respectively, purely on a “No Work, No Pay” basis, owing to the shortage of regular erstwhile Group ‘D’ staff. Their engagement was purely temporary, casual and need-based and was extended from time to time. At the time of engagement, it was clearly informed that they were not appointed against any sanctioned post, that their services were liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice, and that such engagement would not confer any right to regular appointment or regularization.
She further submitted that the Applicants had earlier filed O.A. Nos. 573 and 680 of 2012 seeking regularization of their services. The said Original Applications were dismissed by this Tribunal on 10.06.2013, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Hon’ble Madras High Court, by judgment dated 10.11.2016 in W.P. Nos. 9316 and 9111 of 2014, affirmed the order of this Tribunal and rejected the claim for regularization. Though the Hon’ble High Court observed that dismissal of the Writ Petitions would not prevent the Applicants from continuing in service, no direction was issued for their regularization or permanent absorption.
The learned counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the Applicants on Jaggo v. Union of India, reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 296, is wholly misplaced. The said judgment neither overrules nor dilutes the principles laid down in Umadevi and was rendered on its own facts. In the present case, the Applicants’ claim for regularization has already been finally adjudicated by this Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. The Respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, Government policy, GFR, 2017, GeM guidelines and audit requirements. Therefore, the decision in Jaggo is distinguishable both on facts and law and has no application to the present case. For the above submissions, she prayed for dismissal of the OA.
Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and the materials made available on record. The case laws referred to by them were also perused by this Tribunal.
The issue that arises for consideration by this Tribunal in the present OA is ‘Whether the applicants are entitled to regularization’ as prayed for by them.
It is seen that when the applicants earlier approached this Tribunal for regularization of their services in OA No.573 and 680 of 2012, the following order was passed by this Tribunal on 10.06.2013:
“7.The Apex Court in RBI vs. Gopinath Sharma and another in Civil Appeal NO.7902/2004 dt.17.07.2006 held that the appointment of daily wagers or casual labourers would come to an end when it is discontinued and temporary employees could not claim to be made as permanent on expiry of their term of appointment. It is also held therein that the High Courts working under Art.226 should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of constitutional scheme. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh and other cases (Civil Appeal Nos.8747 to 8749 of 2011) wherein it is held that merely because daily wagers have worked 240 days, they cannot claim relief of reinstatement.
8.The applicants have not established that either the circular instructions or the judgment in Umadevi's case is violated in any manner.
9.In the light of the above settled principles of law, I am of the opinion that the applicants have not made out a case for the grant of relief.
10.For the reasons stated above, both the applications are dismissed. No order as to costs”.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, the applicants preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.9316 & 9111 of 2014 which were dismissed in the following terms vide its judgment, dated 10.11.2016:
“19.The claim of the petitioners could not be considered favourably in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. We are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, has come to a correct conclusion in rejecting the claim of the petitioners in the light of the decision in Umadevi's case. We do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
20.For the reasons stated supra, we are of the considered view that the relief sought for could not be granted to the petitioners. The conclusion reached by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, deserves to be upheld and is accordingly upheld. Consequently, these Writ Petitions are dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs”.
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the Applicants is that the legal position has evolved changes over time and that, in a catena of judgments, including the recent decision in Rupesh R. Gaonkar & Others v. State of Goa & Others, reported in 2026 INSC 792, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“28.In Distt. Bar Assn., Bandipora (supra)9, this Court has held in terms that Umadevi (supra) does not denude the State or its instrumentalities from framing a scheme for regularisation. Consequently, it is not authority for the proposition that the executive cannot frame a policy of regularisation for its long-serving temporary employees. In Sheo Narain Nagar, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432, this Court deprecated the practice of States denying long-serving workmen the benefit of regularisation by taking recourse to a mechanical reading of Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
29.More recently, this Court, in Jaggo Vs Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, underscored whether the duties performed by long-serving temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organisation concerned, clarifying that Umadevi (supra) was directed against illegal backdoor appointments, and was never intended to penalise employees who, though irregularly engaged, have rendered long service in essential, perennial roles. This Court has further, in Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularisation to temporary employees, holding that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years together without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. This body of precedent distinguishing and refining Umadevi (supra) rather than displacing it, squarely governs the facts of the present case……
30.Tested on the touchstone of this line of authority, the present is manifestly a case falling within, and not outside, the one-time measure contemplated by paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) itself, which recognises that irregular, as distinct from illegal appointments of duly qualified persons, continued for ten years or more without the intervention of any court order, may be regularised on a one-time basis. The appellants' engagement was not the product of a clandestine or illegal backdoor entry; it was the outcome of a structured process, constitution of a Society by the State, a Cabinet-approved categorisation exercise, and the grant of temporary status undertaken by the State itself, with full knowledge and active participation of its highest executive authorities, including the Chief Minister and the concerned Minister.
31.In view of the above, we find that the High Court fell into error in treating the appellants’ engagement as vitiated at the threshold for want of due process while, in the very same breath, observing in paragraph 53 of the impugned judgment that, save for regularisation, the appellants had been treated at par with their counterparts in the regular establishment by the grant of temporary status together with parity in pay and emoluments. These two findings sit uneasily with one another. The grant of temporary status was preceded by a process of scrutiny and categorisation undertaken at the instance of the State itself and reflects a conscious governmental decision that the appellants should continue to discharge the functions assigned to the respective posts. It also demonstrates that the State did not regard the appellants as lacking the requisite eligibility to continue in service. In such circumstances, the principal irregularity, if any, lay in the manner of their initial engagement rather than in any subsequent recognition of their utility or eligibility by the State. It is this distinction that paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) requires the Court to keep in view while considering claims for one-time regularisation.
Xxxx
35.For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have made out a case for regularisation of their services in the establishment of the PWD, Government of Goa, and that the impugned judgment of the High Court, insofar as it declines such relief, warrants interference.“
This Tribunal has also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents that granting the relief of regularization to the Applicants would open the floodgates to similar claims by other contractual or casual workers across the country. Such a contention, by itself, cannot defeat a claim otherwise sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when any relief granted is confined to the Applicants before this Tribunal and does not amount to laying down a general policy applicable to persons who are not parties to the proceedings.
Be that as it may, since the law has been evolved and changed a lot on the issue of regularization and the recent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we deem it appropriate not to adjudicate the claim for regularization on merits at this stage. Instead, the matter is left to the Respondents to consider the Applicants’ claim afresh in the light of the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Applicants are also directed to furnish to the Respondents copies of the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which they seek to rely, along with their representation, to enable the Respondents to consider their claim in its proper perspective.
In the result, the OA is disposed of on the terms indicated above. No order as to costs.