Krishna Murari Kumar & Ors. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

As regards order in OA No. 10/2007, it is stated that drawing a parallel between the facts and circumstances of the instant OA and the OA No. 10/2007 (Ajit Kumar Ojha & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. - CAT, Ranchi) by the applicants is not justified and the reasons have been assigned in para 13 of the written statement which mentions that it was done to cater to the needs of the newly established Direct Taxes Regional Training Institute (DTRTI) at Hazaribagh.

It is further submitted that the applicants of OA No. 10/2007 made a glaring misrepresentation of fact before this Tribunal. The observation of this Tribunal in the said OA that “It is also pointed out that one Shri Bijay Kumar Singh who had been working with them had been subsequently regularized and this indicated that repatriation could have been possible if they had a mind for such steps” is based on the false and misleading submission made by the applicants of that case. Whereas, the fact is that the said Shri Bijay Kumar Singh was working as a daily wage worker in Ministerial Staff Training Institute of the Income Tax Department at Patna on the date of such submission. As such, the order of this Tribunal for regularization of the applicants of OA No. 10/2007 was based on the pretext of a factually incorrect, false and misrepresented submission made by the applicants of that case.

With regard to the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 189/2015 (Md. Rizwan & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.), it is submitted that in compliance of the said order, the claim of all the three applicants of the said OA was examined in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.04.2006 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (Supra). After examination of the claim of applicants and perusal of records, it was found that the necessary exercise for regularization of casual workers in accordance with the above judgment and as mandated by the DOPT OM dated 11.12.2006, has already been completed in the region of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Bihar & Jharkhand), Patna in the year 2010. This was a one-time exercise. The Departmental Committee constituted for this purpose had examined the cases of all the then 337 casual workers including the case of the applicants of OA No. 189/2015 (Md. Rizwan Vs. UOI & Ors.) and recommended the name of 65 casual workers out of 337, who were found eligible for regularization in terms of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Out of 65 recommended casual workers, 35 senior most casual workers of the respective categories were recruited vide order dated 20.08.2010 against the vacancies available in various Group ‘D’ posts in accordance with the reservation roster and Income Tax Department (Group ‘D’] Recruitment Rules.

It is further contended that the names of the applicants of the OA No. 189/2015 (Md. Rizwan Vs. UOI & Ors.) were not recommended as they had not completed 10 years of continuous service as on the cutoff date of 10.04.2006, i.e. the date of order in the case of Uma Devi. Thus, the claim for regularization by the applicants of OA No. 189/2005 stands considered in the light of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi.

The respondents have pointed out that the exercise for regularization carried out in the year 2010 was a one-time measure and cases of all the casual workers who were entitled to be considered in terms of para-44 of Uma Devi case were duly considered. The competent authority after considering the judgment in the case of Uma Devi found that none of the applicants of the present OA had completed 10 years of continuous service as on cut-off date, i.e. 10.04.2006.

Accordingly, in compliance of the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 189/2015 a reasoned and speaking order was passed rejecting the claim of the applicants. Aggrieved by the speaking order the applicants filed contempt petition vide CP No. 14/2020 and keeping in view the opinion of Ld. Sr. CGSC, CAT, Patna vide letter dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure-R/6 of the written statement) the services of the three applicants of OA No. 189/2015 were regularized on 29.07.2025.

It is further contended that the services of Raman Kumar and Others were regularized w.e.f. 20.08.2010 vide order dated 25.10.2023 after the final order dated 03.07.2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal SLP No. 7898/2020 (Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.)

The respondents have categorically pointed out that Sri Bijay Kumar Singh, who has been found to be similarly situated casual worker with the applicants of OA No. 10/2007 (Ajit Kumar Ojha & ors Vs. UOI & Ors.), has been regularized on 21.03.2025 w.e.f. 28.02.2020 with the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in pursuance of order of Hon’ble High Court, Patna dated 29.07.2024 in CWJC No. 12919/2023 and that the case of Shri Bijay Kumar Singh is not connected with the case of present applicants.

The respondents denied that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants is discriminatory and arbitrary. The cases have been considered strictly in accordance with the settled law, i.e. the case of Uma Devi and the corresponding DOPT guidelines. The facts remain that none of the applicants completed the requisite 10 years of continuous service as on the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 which was the mandatory criterion for regularization and as such there is no violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

The respondents have further alleged that merely because the names of present applicants mentioned in Annexure A/1 and Annexure/ 5(a) have filed a separate OA ( i.e. the present OA) does not create any legal or equitable claim in favour of the present applicants. Each case is required to be considered on its own facts and the eligibility for regularization is determined based on the service records, date of engagement, and the relevant DOPT/departmental guidelines. The fact that some individuals from the same list have approached this Tribunal does not entitle the present applicants to automatic relief.

While stating that the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 745 and Maharaj Kishan Bhatt & Others V/s The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 784 cited by the applicants are misplaced, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

In the instant OA, the following questions arise for consideration:

Whether the applicants can be denied consideration for regularisation solely because they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 ?

Whether the subsequent regularisation of similarly situated persons from the same pool of 337 casual labourers is a relevant circumstance in determining the applicants’ claim?

Whether the applicants are entitled to regularisation and consequential benefits in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case?

There is no dispute with the general proposition laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi that regularisation cannot be treated as a substitute for regular recruitment and that constitutional requirements governing public employment cannot ordinarily be bypassed.

However, the respondents' submission proceeds on the assumption that the only relevant consideration is whether each applicant had completed ten years of service on 10.04.2006. This particular date was decided in view of the prevailing facts and period of time when the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uma Devi case was delivered. This date does not negate the ratio decidendi of the said judgment. Moreover, such an approach, in my considered view, does not correctly take into account the subsequent development of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again in a catena of judgments distinguished between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment and contemplated consideration of long-serving employees working against duly sanctioned posts in appropriate circumstances.

The distinction is of considerable importance. An appointment which is void or contrary to the fundamental requirements of the recruitment process stands on a different footing from an appointment where the employee was engaged by the competent authority, worked against the continuing requirements of the establishment and are still working. The only deficiency related to the mode or procedure of initial engagement.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has examined the manner in which the principles in Uma Devi have been applied to long-serving temporary employees. The Court emphasised that Uma Devi was intended to prevent back-door entry into public service and not to authorise the State or its instrumentalities to continue persons indefinitely on temporary, casual or ad hoc arrangements while continuously extracting the services required on a perennial basis. The subsequent jurisprudence therefore requires the examination of the substance of engagement, the nature of the work, the length and continuity of service, the existence of sanctioned posts, the conduct of the employer and the treatment extended to similarly situated employees, rather than mechanically applying the nomenclature of “casual labourer” or the cut-off date in isolation.

This does not mean that every casual employee acquires an automatic right to regularisation merely by passage of time. The Court is required to ascertain whether the appointment was illegal or merely irregular and whether the employee has otherwise been continuously engaged against the regular requirements of the establishment.

The subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 200 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, assumes particular significance in the present case. The said matter related to daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department at Gwalior. The Union of India resisted regularisation, inter alia, on the ground that the workers had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 and that there were issues concerning sanctioned posts and the casual nature of engagement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court nevertheless found the appellants entitled to relief, particularly having regard to the fact that similarly situated daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department had already been regularised pursuant to judicial orders.

The significance of Pawan Kumar judgment can be seen in the context of the examination of the issues in this instant O.A. where the respondents are the same Income Tax Department. The decision demands that there should not be discrimination and wavering stand of the same respondent department of the Government of India in actual treatment accorded by the employer to similarly situated employees.

The respondents therefore cannot rely upon the single circumstance that the applicants did not complete ten years as on 10.04.2006 while ignoring the subsequent course of events and the regularisation of similarly situated workers of the same establishment.

In the present case, the applicants are not seeking regularisation merely on the ground that they have continued for a long period. They are seeking parity with those specific and identifiable class of employees, namely casual labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoor forming part of the same list of 337 persons maintained by the respondents. A number of such persons have already been regularised. The respondents themselves admit that the cases of all the 337 casual workers were examined in the course of the exercise undertaken pursuant to Uma Devi. Thus, the applicants cannot be regarded as persons wholly unconnected with the class which has already received regularisation.

The fact that the applicants did not secure regularisation in the earlier exercise does not, by itself, conclude their claim for all times to come, particularly when subsequent judicial decisions have resulted in regularisation of other persons belonging to the same pool and the respondents themselves have implemented those decisions. The constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 requires the administration to apply a consistent standard to persons similarly situated. It is well settled that the State cannot adopt one yardstick for one set of employees and another yardstick for another set of employees without a rational basis for such differentiation.

The principle is particularly attracted where the persons have:

been engaged by the same Department;

been included in the same consolidated list;

discharged substantially similar duties;

received the same wage treatment;

continued for substantially comparable periods; and

been subjected to the same departmental regularisation exercise.

Further, the respondents contend that the 2010 exercise was a one-time exercise and that the applicants were excluded because they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. This submission cannot be accepted as an absolute answer to the present claim.

First, the 2010 exercise cannot be treated as creating an immutable legal embargo against consideration of the applicants when subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have materially clarified the manner in which the principles governing regularisation are to be applied.

Secondly, the respondents themselves have subsequently regularised persons from the same original pool pursuant to judicial orders.

Thirdly, if the 2010 exercise is said to be a complete and final determination of the status of every one of the 337 workers, there would be no legal basis for the subsequent regularisation of other members of the same pool. The respondents cannot simultaneously contend that the 2010 exercise was absolutely final for the present applicants while accepting and implementing subsequent orders granting regularisation to other similarly situated persons.

Fourthly, the subsequent judicial decisions have altered the legal landscape concerning long-serving casual employees and have specifically cautioned against mechanical reliance upon the 10.04.2006 cut-off date.

It is further noted that the respondents have not established before this Tribunal that the regularisation of Ajit Kumar Ojha and others, Raman Kumar and others, Bijay Kumar Singh, Md. Rizwan and others was founded upon an illegality which this Tribunal is required to perpetuate. On the contrary, the material placed before us shows that those cases were adjudicated upon by competent judicial fora and the orders were either upheld or implemented by the respondents. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself, in Pawan Kumar, dealt with regularisation of similarly situated daily-wage workers of the Income Tax Department and granted relief notwithstanding the objection founded upon the 10.04.2006 criterion. The respondents, therefore, cannot successfully rely upon the 2010 exercise as an inflexible bar without undertaking a fresh examination of the applicants' cases in the light of the subsequent binding law.

The respondents have not pleaded that the work performed by the applicants ceased after a short duration or that the applicants were merely engaged for an isolated or emergent purpose. On the contrary, the continued payment of wages at the rate linked to the minimum of the relevant pay scale and the subsequent continuation of such engagement indicate that the Department has continued to derive the benefit of their services. The State cannot indefinitely preserve an employee in a temporary/casual status and thereafter rely upon that very temporary status, created and continued by the State itself, as the reason for denying regularisation.

In the facts of the present case, the respondents are required to reconsider the applicants' cases in a manner consistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and without treating 10.04.2006 as an absolute bar. The exercise must also take into account the fact that the applicants belong to the same original pool of 337 casual workers and that several persons from that pool have already been regularised.

In conclusion, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have adopted an overly restrictive approach by treating non-completion of ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 as an absolute and conclusive bar. Such an approach cannot be sustained in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Jaggo and Pawan Kumar, read with the peculiar factual circumstances of the present case.

The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for consideration of the applicants for regularisation against the appropriate Group-D posts, without rejecting their claim solely on the ground that they had not completed ten years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 for the reasons stated in the above analysis in the preceding paragraph 7. While doing so, the respondents shall take into consideration the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 200, besides all other binding decisions applicable to the facts of the case as discussed and referred to above.

The individual claim shall be considered on its own individual merits of the case of each and every applicant in the light of the subsequent legal developments stated above and the parity arising from the regularisation of similarly situated employees.

If, upon such consideration, the applicants are found similarly situated and otherwise eligible for regularisation, their services shall be regularised against the appropriate available/sanctioned posts in accordance with law. While determining the effective date of regularisation, the respondents shall consider the dates from which similarly situated employees from the same pool were regularised and shall record specific reasons if a different effective date is proposed for any applicant and communicate the same to each of the individual applicants.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No order as to costs.