AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal to seek the following relief:
“8.1.To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 18.02.2026.
8.2.To direct the respondents to count the service of the applicant from 2008 and to regularise his service in the light of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and to grant him all the consequential service benefits including arrear salary, seniority, and financial up-gradation etc.
8.3To direct the respondents not to terminate the service of the applicant and to pay his salary regularly by allowing him to sign the attendance register regularly.
8.4.Cost of the application.
8.5.Pass any such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
Brief of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are that, applicant was working as casual worker and has been continuing for about 18 years by performing various duties like a regular Group B-C & D Staff. The service of the applicant was thereafter utilized w.e.f. 01.11.2011 by the respondents against the retirement vacancy of one Chowkider.
That the Deputy Director, New Delhi vide his letter dated 24.12.2013 wrote to the Regional Director, Guwahati requesting furnishing of particulars the casual laborers working in the office for granting the benefit under the scheme of 10.09.1993. In the aforesaid letter dated 24.12.2013, there has been a reference of the O.M dated 02.12.2013 issued by the DOPT, Govt. of India emphasizing need for granting benefit like Temporary Status to the casual workers. The case of the applicant was favorably put up for grant of Temporary Status under the scheme dated 10.09.1993 by the Regional Director, (NER), Guwahati, vide his letter dated 27.12.2013 addressing to the Deputy Director (Admn) New Delhi. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, New Delhi, vide his letter dated 25.04.2014 wrote to the Regional Director NER requesting information relating to the mode of appointment as well as the need of the service of the applicant. The Regional Director (NER) vide his letter dated 05.05.2014, answering the detailed information relating to the appointment of the applicant as casual worker and the need, basis on which he was so appointed.
That the respondents have been taking active initiative to provide the benefits from various Office Memorandums issued covering the issue relating to grant of Temporary Status and subsequent regularization to the casual worker working under the Ministry of Textiles. To that effect the Govt. of India, Ministry of Textile has issued an OM dated 20.12.2013 requesting furnishing of information relating to the casual worker under the concern Ministry for providing the benefits flowing from the scheme of 1993.
That, the Govt. of India, Ministry of P.G & Personnel DOPT, has issued an O.M dated 07.10.2020 streamlining the process of regularization of the casual workers after deliberation of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka —vs- Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The OM dated 07.10.2020 is very clear that if the casual worker works continuously for 10 years, the service of such casual worker may be regularized as one time measure.
The applicant made a series of representations for consideration of his case for regularisation but same yielded no result in positive. Hence, this O.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the respondents taking note of the OM dated 24.11.2013 issued an order dated 30.10.2019 by which the applicant has been granted with the benefit of Temporary Status and his pay has been fixed at the minimum of Group - C grade as per the pay matrix as recommended by the 7° pay commission. The applicant has been getting his salary regularly without any break. The service rendered by him is perennial in nature and without any break and he gets his regular salary as per the pay scales maintained by the respondents. At no point of time there was any objection pertaining to the service discharged by the applicant. The applicant by dint of his sincere regular service was granted with the benefit of Temporary Status by the respondents, as such there should be no difficulty in regularizing the service of the Applicant as by now he has completed 18 years of service.
The impugned order dated 18.02.2026, is grossly discriminatory in denying the benefit of regularisation to the applicant under the various schemes and guidelines as adopted by the Govt.of India and same is in direct conflict with the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Tribunal. The respondents have taken the service of the applicant since 2008 and denying to grant the benefit of regularisation and other related benefits flowing from such regularisation is illegal and same is liable to be interfered with. While passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2026, have caused a serious threatening to the applicant by making a move to terminate his service by replacing him by another temporary employee and as such same is not tenable in the eye of law.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in Uma Devi, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that public employment must strictly follow constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 16, ruling that backdoor entries are illegal, long-term casual or temporary service does not create an inherent right to regularisation, and regularisation cannot bypass formal recruitment rules. He also place reliance in Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 30762 of 2024 [2026 INSC 99] and submits that Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that the State cannot deny regularization to long-serving contractual employees after extracting work from them for over a decade on sanctioned posts. The action on the part of the respondents in not considering the long undisputed and unblemished service of the applicant towards regularising his service is not sustainable in the eye of law and the Tribunal may interfere in the matter. The impugned order dated 18.02.2026, is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed.
Respondents have stated that Applicant had filed one O.A No 192/2023 and this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 20.05.2025 directed the Respondents Authority to consider the case of Applicant for regularization as per law with consequential benefit. Accordingly, in compliance, the matter was duly examined taking into consideration all aspects and, accordingly, a reasoned Speaking Order dated 18.02.2026 was passed. Applicant was not found eligible for regularization as per existing Government Guidelines. He was never been entrusted with any assurance for regularization of his service by the Department. His engagement was purely casual and intermittent in nature, initially utilized as seasonal labour and subsequently against the vacant post of Chowkidar. Such engagement cannot be treated as a regular appointment under the Government service rules or gives right to for regulation.
As per respondents, applicant was given the temporary status vide Order No. NER/Admn./166/OS-Manpower/2011-12 dated 30.10.2019 issued by the Regional Office, NERO, Guwahatl, and his pay was fixed at the minimum of the Group 'C' pay scale as per the 7th Central Pay Commission. However, the said order clearly stipulated that the applicant shall not claim regular status in future, and that the engagement would continue only till a regular staff joins the post or subject to audit objection. In this connection, the said post has already been joined by a regular incumbent namely, Smti Biju Dutta, MTS.
However, the approval of the Competent/Appointing Authority i.e. Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) has never been accorded for the same before granting temporary status and was never endorsed to the competent authority. Since it was done without approval of the Competent Authority/ appointing authority i.e. Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) and thus cannot confer any legal entitlement. His engagement was purely casual and need based in nature and does not constitute a regular appointment under the applicable Government service rules. An irregular order cannot cure an illegal appointment.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
It is admitted position that the applicant was appointed as Casual Worker in 2008 and he was adjusted against the vacancy on the retirement of one employee and was paid regular salary and his service was utilized like regular Gr. D & C staff. The Dy. Director also wrote to the Regional Director for grant of temporary status which was forwarded and, thereafter, he was granted temporary status vide order dated 30.10.2019. It was also contended by the respondents that he was granted temporary status in 2019 by the Regional Director, however, they have stated that the approval of the competent authority was not accorded for grant of temporary status. Be that as it may, he was granted temporary status in 2019 and he was continuing in service and his service was utilized like regular staff and he was paid on regular pay scale.
It is a settled law that where an employee has continuously worked for several years, satisfied the eligibility conditions, denial of regularization benefit amounts to unfair treatment and cannot be sustained in law.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 30762 of 2024 [2026 INSC 99] held that the State cannot deny regularization to long-serving contractual employees after extracting work from them for over a decade on sanctioned posts. It also held that the State cannot exploit its superior bargaining power to keep employees on contract for over a decade against sanctioned posts and then abruptly deny them regularization using contractual disclaimers or misinterpreting the Umadevi judgment.
In Dharam Singh and Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the State cannot use generic "financial constraints" or temporary labels to deny regularisation to daily-wage workers who have performed permanent, perennial duties for decades.
In Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC Online SC 221], the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that municipal corporations cannot exploit long-term daily-wage workers on perennial tasks and fire them without statutory compliance
In Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 3826], the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that mere label of "temporary" or "part-time" cannot be used to deny rightful claims to regularization when the nature of work is perennial and integral to an organization's operations.
We have observed that the service of the applicant has been utilised since 2008 uninterruptedly and he was also granted temporary status in 2019 by now he has already completed more than 18 years of service under the respondents. So the action of the respondents in denying him regularisation is not sustainable in terms of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in various cases as cited above. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation in the light of latest various judgements including Uma Devi and Jaggo (supra) and as per Circular/Scheme framed by the DOPT OM supra within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, O.A. stands disposed of. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.