AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the similar benefits of orders for regularization of applicants also as given to casual labour / substitutes of other departments viz. Mechanical Department in Traffic and Commercial Department of Varanasi Division viz. to S/ Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Chhote Lal Giri Ramanand, Harendra, Ram Pal Prasad etc of Mechanical Department in group 'D' categories of Traffic and Commercial Division in compliance of orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 21.4.2009 passed in M.A. for Execution No. 8/2008 in RA No. 25/2002 in O.A. No. 63/1996 i.e. from the date above named junior persons and fresh faces were regularized in Traffic and Commercial Department in group 'D' categories.
(ii)The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits of service seniority etc. in respect of their junior persons and fresh faces already engaged and regularized ignoring the preferential claim of the applicants. ,
(iii)Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
(iv)Cost of the application may also be awarded”
The brief facts of this case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Substitutes in North Eastern Railway in the Traffic (Operating) Department in Group 'D' post. The name of the applicants got enrolled on the Live Casual Labour Register as they were engaged as Substitutes after 1.1.1981. The applicants herein who claim to have put in a service of 157 and 193 days respectively are aggrieved with the fact that they have not been given temporary status as par with their juniors and their services have not been regularised.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were appointed initially as Substitutes within age limit prescribed for regular post of 'Group 'D' as such the applicants are entitled for relaxation of age in terms of Para 2006 (iii) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol II (Edn. 1990) and as per provisions contained in Master Circular on Casual Labour No. 48. He further states that one Mohd. Yunus and Panna Lal who had worked only 120 days, were given a status of temporary employee in terms of Railway Board's circular No. E(NG)II/83/CL/117 dated 25.1.1985 as per DRM(P)/ N.E. Railway Varanasi's letter No. Ka. / Va./227/II/Aa. Shra./90 dated 18.7.1990. The above named casual labourers were having less / equal number of working days but they were given temporary status and applicants were denied arbitrarily as applicants belonged to Scheduled Caste casual labour. Thus, the applicants were discriminated against in giving temporary status and regularization. Besides above, S/Shri Ashwini Kumar Gupta and others Vs. U.O.I. and others and S/Shri Chhotey Lal Giri and others Vs. UOI and others filed original applications no. 63 of 1996 and 1398 of 2001 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and order was passed in case of A.K. Gupta and others Vs. UOI & ors. on 4.6.2001. The Respondents filed Review Application No. 25 / 2002 in O.A. No. 63 of 2002- Union of India and Ors. Vs. A.K. Gupta & Ors. against the order dated 4.6.2001 and Ors. which was decided on 1.3.2004 in which direction was given as under:
"4.In view of the above discussion, the order dated 4.6.2001 is recalled and the operative para of the judgment as modified as follows: Respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of those applicants whose particulars about working period have been found to be correct on verification in the list dated 21.4.1989 for regularization in accordance with the instructions available at the Central Administrative Tribunalrelevant time and subject to availability of the vacancies. Respondents are further directed to take care that no fresh face or juniors to the applicants is given preference over applicants for regularization."
An execution application was also filed for compliance of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the applicant states that screening for regularization of only those ex casual labours / substitutes were done and published who were parties / applicants in O.A. No. 63/1996 / Review Application No. 25/2002 -A. K. Gupta and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. and in O.A. no. 1398/2001 Chhote Lal Giri and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. and no opportunity was given to casual labours / substitutes of live casual labour of Traffic and Commercial Department to be screened along with them. Thus, applicants were ignored and discriminated against with regard to their regularization. Applicants were eligible and entitled for regularization under the said scheme along with S/ A.K. Gupta and Ors. and Chhote Lal Giri and Others etc. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants are similarly situated persons like S/ Shri A. K. Gupta and Ors. and Chhote Lal Giri and Others as such the respondents cannot discriminate applicants by the same authorities in an illegal manner.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicants are S.C. candidates and were under age limit as per Rule contained in para 2006 (iii) of IREM Vol. II as well as in terms of the provisions contained in Master Circular No. 48. It is also mentioned that all OBC candidates have been given appointment relaxing their age limit in aforesaid case of Chhotey Lal and Others. Vs. Union of India and Ors. S/Shri Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta etc. are junior persons who were regularized by the respondents as such the applicants are entitled for their regularization under the same screening proceeding. Similar benefits of the aforesaid cases should also be extended to the applicants in the matter of their regularization. As per settled Law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, similarly situated cases should be dealt similarly. Thus, it is argued that denying similar benefits to the applicants is discriminatory and illegal.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicants are not entitled to relaxation of age since at the time of screening test, one should be under the prescribed age limit. It is also submitted that no cause of action can be given to the applicants on the basis of the case filed by Shri A.K. Gupta. As far as the question of calling the applicants for screening test is concerned it is stated that the same is subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria pursuant to direction of the Railway Board and upon making application in reference to notification issued for the screening test of adhoc Safaiwala. In view of aforesaid submissions no benefit can be given to the applicants.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A.No.-11282/2018 Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 others vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.01.2025 as well as the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (C) No.22533/2025 Ram Abhilash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 21.01.2026 and further argued that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Court has allowed a compensation to the tune of Rs.8 Lakhs to each of the applicants. It is also argued that a similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in O.A./158/2023 decided on 23.04.2026 Prem Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. extending the same benefit to the applicants. Further reliance has also been placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Sri. P. Junjappa vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and others in Writ Petition No.6238 of 2020 decided on 17.03.2025. In P. Junjappa (supra) case, reliance has been placed on various cases of the Hon’ble Apex Court including the case of Jaggo vs Union of India and others [2024 INSC 1034] (as also relied upon by the applicants herein) and direction was given to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in M.L. Kesari and other reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 and other applicable judgments. The relevant extracts are quoted below:
3.The petitioner P. Junjappa, was engaged as a daily wage employee in Forest Department over a period of thirty years and has since then, discharging his duties as a Forest Watcher/Driver performing tasks equivalent to those assigned to regular employees. Despite rendering continuous uninterrupted service for an extended period, the petitioner's request for regularization was denied through endorsements dated 29.8.2016 (Annexures-A5 to A7), prompting him to seek redressal before KSAT. But, however, the KSAT, vide order dated 31.07.2019, dismissed his claim for regularization on the following grounds:
● Lack of documentary evidence establishing continuous service.
● Non-fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the land mark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
● Delay in seeking regularization.
● Failure to demonstrate parity with similarly placed employees who had been granted regularization
….
10.The Tribunal's reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (supra) is misplaced, as it has been applied in a rigid and mechanical manner without considering the subsequent clarification by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra). The decision in M.L.Kesari (supra) categorically stipulate that, employees who have completed ten years of service in sanctioned post prior to the pronouncement of Umadevi (supra) are entitled to regularization. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that 'those who rendered over ten years of service in sanctioned post should not be deprived of regularization merely due to the procedural delays on the part of the authority'.
….
14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 has observed in para.20 as under:
"20.It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and Central Administrative Tribunalnecessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of Indias, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
"6.The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7.The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
15.Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.5873/2025 in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Abdul Rehman Khanday and Ors. decided on 7.3.2025 at para.2 of its judgment observed with regard to the conduct of the State Officials/authorities in considering the similar prayers of the daily wagers therein who had sought regularization of their services which reads as follows:
"At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstination exhibited by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. The inaction of the officers of the petitioner - Union Territory, who took about 16 years to comply with a simpliciter High Court order passed on 03.05.2007, is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.
3.However, what concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. In such facts and circumstances, the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court including the imposition of symbolic cost does not warrant any interference by this Court."
16.Even the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100387/2023 decided on 4.9.2024 supra authored by one of us i.e., Justice Krishna Dixit following Nihal Singh (supra) granted the relief of the kind to the private litigants by dismissing the appeal of the State Government. Thus, respondents cannot deny the relief to the petitioner by quoting jurisprudential theories.
CONCLUSION:
17.In view of the aforementioned legal and factual infirmities, it is evident that, the order passed by the KSAT is unsustainable in law. The KSAT has failed to appreciate the legal principles governing regularization, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra) and other precedents. Thus, the petitioner has successfully established his case for regularization and the respondents have not provided any legally tenable justification for denying him this benefit. Therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner succeeds.”
Referring to above and seeking parity with the similarly situated employees as well as Shri Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta etc. who are said to be juniors to the applicants and who were regularised by the respondents, the applicants have also referred to the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in various case laws settling the principle that similarly situated cases should be dealt similarly.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have relied upon the judgement of this Tribunal passed in O.A.740/2014 (Sanjeev Kumar vs Union of India and ors) decided on 26.02.2026 in which the claim of the applicants for regularization has been dismissed as the applicants therein were found to have never been granted any temporary status and their uninterrupted service was also not established.
The respondents have taken a stand that it will not be possible to verify the facts disclosed by the applicants in the O.A. as it relates to the year 1989. However, being the custodian of records, the respondents cannot say that the record of a particular year is not available with them particularly when the matter is subjudice before the court. Thus, considering this fact that the applicants have taken a specific plea that similar other casual labourers who have worked less than 120 days have been given temporary status and have also been regularised, it will be just and proper to dispose of the O.A. with the direction to the respondents to verify the following facts:-
Whether the applicants were enrolled on the Live Casual Labour Register or not?
Total number of days the applicants have worked.
The said similarly situated employees namely Shri Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta have been granted temporary status or not and what is the number of days for which they have worked.
Whether the aforesaid employees namely Shri Chhote Lal and Ashwni Kumar Gupta have been regularised or not?
Whether the applicants’ cases are covered by the case laws relied upon or not on the basis of the record maintained by the department?
Since in the O.A., at the initial stage the applicants have disclosed their age as 46 and 44 years respectively, and, later on, during the pendency of the O.A., they have amended their age as 35 and 39 respectively, respondents are hereby directed to verify this fact also.
On verification of the facts as enumerated above, if it is found that the applicants’ cases are squarely covered with the law laid down Central Administrative Tribunalin the aforesaid cases and the benefits have been extended to the similarly situated employees, the applicants should also be granted the similar benefits of temporary status and regularisation. It is also clarified that the applicants should also be granted opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their cases before coming to any conclusion in the matter.
The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The O.A. stands disposed of accordingly. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.