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:
“It is, therefore prayed that Your Lordships' would be pleased to admit this application, call for the entire records of the case, ask the Respondents to show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to the respondents for grant of temporary status to the applicants granting all consequential benefits granted to similarly situated laborers vide order dated 23.1.2019 (ANNEXURE- 9) w.e.f the date of their completion of 1 year of continuous service as casual laborer in the department and as to why a direction shall not be given to the respondents to regularize U22 their services at par with other similarly situated casual laborers in the list dated 1.9.2010 (ANNEXURE-5); call for the records and after perusing the causes shown, if any and hearing the parties, be pleased to allow this application granting the reliefs prayed for herein above and/or pass any other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
Brief facts of the case as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are that, applicants are aggrieved by non-regularization of their services in which they have been serving on contractual basis for long time. They were engaged as casual workers in the CG Department and are serving at various places in Assam since their engagement in 1993 to 1995.
That, the government of India took a policy decision in 1993 to grant temporary status to the casual workers having continued for one year and thus availing them certain benefits including regularization in service. Subsequently, also in view of judgment in Uma Devi’s case, the applicants were given the lowest pay of group-D posts (re-classified as Group-C) on daily / no work no pay basis with D.A. Though persons similarly situated were conferred temporary status and subsequent regularization, the applicants have not been given the Temporary Status and consequently they have not been regularized. The present application has been filed for conferring Temporary Status to the applicants as casual workers with retrospective effect of completion of one year with H.R.A, C.C.A, increments, leave entitlement, GPF, grant of advances etc as has been granted in-similar cases.
Sri B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicants submit that, the Ministry of Personnel and Training Department issued an Office Memorandum Dated 10/09/1993 taking a policy decision for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. The Office Memorandum was issued pursuant to the Judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi, dated 16/02/1990 (Raj Kamal and Ors -versus- Union of India). The scheme was named as ‘Casual Laborers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993’, which came into force w.e.f. 01/01/1993 (hereinafter referred to as Scheme of 1993). The Scheme was to be applicable to all the Departments of Government of India except railway, Telecommunication, Post, who had their own schemes.
That, after Uma Devi, the Government of India, Revenue Department, Central Board of Excise and Customs, issued letter dated 10/09/2008 to the Chief Commissioners of Central excise and customs (Shillong Zone), North East Region , wherein it was mentioned that those casual workers engaged period to 01/09/1993 and earned temporary status can be considered for regularization against 2/3 vacancies for the post of sepoy subject to the fulfilment of all eligibility condition of recruitment rules. It is also mentioned that those Regular Casual Workers appointed after the cut-off date of 01/09/1993 and completed 10 years of service can be considered for regularization of service.
That, the Revenue Department, Government of India vide order dated 15/10/2009, whereby the service of 80 casual workers including the applicants, who were engaged for many years and had completed more than 10 years of service as casual workers as on 10/04/2006 in the Department, have been giving daily rate of wages at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of Group-D (now re-classified as Group-C) staff along with DA, adhoc bonus etc. The daily rate of the wage is fixed @ of 1/30 of the pay scale.
That, in the list of 80 casual workers, the name of the applicant Nos. 1 to 8 appear at Sl. Nos. 80, 78, 79, 68, 75, 72, 77 and 65 respectively. That, thereafter, the office of the Chief Commissioner Central Excise and Custom (Shillong Zone), North East Region, passed order dated 01/09/2010, whereby temporary status was giving to 30 casual workers from the list of 80 casual workers. Subsequently their services were regularised against sanctioned posts and presently they are serving as cadred staff of the department and enjoying all benefits given to a regular /cadre employee of the department. Accordingly the applicants are getting their pay on daily basis @ of Group-D (now re-classified as Group-C) staff along with D.A and minimum amount of festival bonus. The wage of the applicants is drawn on no work no pay basis.
That it would appear from a letter dated 8.8.2017 that, Government was also considering regularization of casual laborers who were not covered by the scheme of DoPT. As stated above, the applicants have been serving as casual workers in the Department for several years and pursuant to the Scheme 1993, their wages were fixed at the minimum scale of Group-D (now re-classified as Group-C) staff with DA and other benefits.
That, when 30 casual workers out of the list of 80 nos. of casual workers were granted temporary status and were regularised forthwith, the applicants were anticipating that they would also be conferred the temporary status as per the Scheme of 1993 and letter dated 10/09/2008. However, till date, the applicants have not been given the status of Regular Casual Worker and they are not getting the due benefit of the regular casual workers as per the Scheme of 1993.
That one of the applicants, Sri Simanta Hazarika made a representation in the common portal i.e CPGRAMS grievance as regards conferment of temporary status and regularization in service. In response, the applicant received letter dated 16.11.17 passed by the authorities wherein it was mentioned that by order dated 15.10.09, 80 numbers of casual workers were ‘regularized’ including Simanta Hazarika appearing at Sl.No.80 of the list and, therefore, nothing was pending for further regularisation. Be it mentioned that by order dated 15.10.09, 80 numbers of casual workers who satisfied the criteria of 1993 scheme and in terms of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s, daily wages were given at the rate of the lowest pay scale of Group D Staff and they would be entitled for DA, adhoc bonus etc.
Sri Chakraborty further submits that, in respect of casual workers of the department of GST, the authorities have passed order dated 23.1.2019 as per the order passed by CAT, Hyderabad Bench whereby 17 laborers/applicants were conferred temporary status with retrospective effect of completion of 1 year of their engagement. The present applicants are also equally entitled for the benefits that have been given to the casual workers by the above order dated 23.1.2019 after conferring temporary status to the applicants with retrospective effect of completing 1 year of their engagement as casual labor in the department and, therefore, the applicants have filed this application for similar benefits which may be granted for the ends of justice.
Respondents have stated that, the , Government of India vide letter 51016/2/90-EStt.A dated 10.09.1993 mandated that “….while the existing guidelines contained in O.M. dated 07.06.1988 may continue to be followed, the grant of temporary status to the casual employees, who are presently employed and have rendered one year of continuous service in Central Govt. offices other than Department of Telecom, post and Railways may be regularised by the scheme as appended.”
One of the criteria for granting temporary status to casual employees is “Temporary Status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment in the date of issue of this O.M. (51016/2/90-Estt. A dated 10.09.1993) and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that they must have engaged for period of atleast 240 days and 206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days’ week.”
As per available records none of the Applicants has fulfilled these criteria, as none of them rendered a continuous service of at least one year on the date of issue of the afore mentioned O.M. i.e. on 10.09.1993. The matter was further clarified by the CBEC vide letter F. No. A 12034/44/2008.Ad.II (B) dated 10.09.2008.
That, none of the Applicants have rendered a continuous service of at least one year on the date of issue of the O.M. 51516/2/90-Estt.A dated 10.09.1993.
That, the Applicants neither fall under the scheme of 1993 nor fulfil the criteria in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court's judgement in Uma Devi case. The Order dated 15.10.2009 was issued only for fixation of daily rate wages of 80 casual workers which was on ‘No Work No Pay’ basis, the same is not related to regularization of their services.
All the casual workers mentioned in the order dated 01.09.2010 have fulfilled the criteria mentioned in O.M. 51016/2/90- Estt.A dated 10.09.1993 i.e. all of them rendered a continuous service of at least one year as on 10.09.1993.
The claim of the applicants regarding the order dated 01.09.2010, in regard to granting temporary status to 30 casual workers from the list of 80 workers, respondents have stated that all the casual workers mentioned in the order dated 01.09.2010 have fulfilled the criteria mentioned in O.M. 51016/2/90- Estt. A dated 10.09.1993 i.e. all of them rendered a continuous service of at least one year as on 10.09.1993.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents and we have also perused the pleadings.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the law is well settled and placed reliance on the following judgements:
Dharam Singh and Ors Vs. State of UP & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC Online SC 221],
Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 3826],
Basudeb Debnath v. Union of India & Ors WP (C) 1162 of 2018
Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [2019 Supreme SC 1044
Bhikani Devi and Etc. vs. Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal No. SLP (C) Nos. 28802-28804 of 2019.
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.
It is admitted position that applicants were appointed on contractual basis and they have been rendering service since 1993-1995. Vide order dated 15/10/2009 of the respondents, the service of 80 casual workers including the applicants (who names appear at Sl. Nos. 80, 78, 79, 68, 75, 72, 77 and 65 respectively), who had completed more than 10 years of service as casual workers as on 10/04/2006 in the Department, have been giving daily rate of wages at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of Group-D. Thereafter, among the said list of 80 casual labourers, 30 casual labourers were granted temporary status and were regularised forthwith. Applicants were anticipating that they would also be conferred the temporary status as per the Scheme of 1993 and letter dated 10/09/2008, however, they have not been considered.
In view of judgment in Uma Devi’s case, the applicants were given the lowest pay of group-D posts (re-classified as Group-C) on daily / no work no pay basis with D.A. The respondents have conferred temporary status and subsequent regularization to similarly situated persons and the applicants were left out though their services have been utilised since 1993 uninterruptedly. Hence the action of the respondents is not sustainable in terms of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases. Their cases should be considered by the respondents as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India (supra) wherein it was held that long-term temporary or part-time workers who have served continuously for over a decade in essential, perennial roles are entitled to regularization.
Their services have been utilised since 1993 uninterruptedly. Hence the action of the respondents is not sustainable in terms of law laid down by the Honble SC in various cases. We therefore direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation at par with other similarly situated casual labours in the light of latest various judgements including Uma Devi & Jaggo (supra) and as per Circular/Scheme (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, O.A. stands allowed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.