Regularisation Cannot Be Denied To Casual Workers Once Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Have Been Regularised: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has directed regularisation of four daily-wage workers engaged in the Income Tax Department’s Gwalior office, applying parity to hold that employees similarly placed cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others in comparable circumstances. Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order, the Court found error in its refusal to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision denying regularisation, despite the workers having performed perennial duties as sweepers and allied support staff for over a decade. The Bench ordered regularisation from 1 July 2006 on the same terms as earlier cases, with consequential benefits to be released within three months.
The appellants were registered with the Employment Exchange and were engaged as casual workers in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 were engaged as Sweepers between 1997 and 1998, while Appellant No. 4 was engaged as a Cook in 1993. According to the judgment, their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and they were engaged after interviews. They claimed to have worked for a considerable period with an expectation of conferment of temporary status and regularisation.
Upon rejection of their representations, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking consideration for regularisation. The Tribunal rejected their claim on the ground that they had not rendered ten years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 in terms of the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The High Court declined interference.
The appellants relied on earlier decisions wherein similarly situated daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department had been regularised. The record included a list of daily-wage workers as on 31.10.2005 in which the names of the appellants appeared alongside those whose services were subsequently regularised.
Referring to its conclusion on parity, the Court stated: “Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the view that the services of the appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, whose services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed by this Court.”
While discussing Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., the Court recorded: “This Court in the aforesaid decision was pleased to note that regularization of similarly situated employees at other places had been undertaken since the year 2006 and that discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the said appellants. It, accordingly, directed regularization of their services from 01.07.2006 alongwith the consequential benefits.”
On the comparison with the regularised set identified in departmental lists, the Court noted: “It is, thus, clear that in view of the decision of this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra), the services of five daily-wage workers from the aforesaid list came to be regularized. Undisputedly, the names of the present appellants also find place in the said list dated 31.10.2005, 11.11.2005 and 31.01.2008. The present appellants are, therefore, similarly situated as the appellants in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra).”
After referring to Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., the Court stated: “This was for the reason that the Income Tax Department could not have discriminated in the matter of regularizing the services of similarly situated employees. On the same analogy, we find that the present appellants also being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated from the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.”
Addressing the department’s reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., and referring Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors., the Court recorded: “Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the appellants in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:”
From the Jaggo, the Court recorded: “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 necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities… 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.”
Concluding on the error in denying relief on the Umadevi basis, the Court held: “the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra).”
The Court directed, “For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from today.”
“The applicants in Interim Application No.42233/2020, who were impleaded as party respondents in view of the order dated 15.03.2021 are also entitled to the aforesaid reliefs. The Civil Appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR
For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. (Not Present) Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Nidhi Khanna Mr. Ishan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
For interveners: Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR
Case Title: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 156
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 29214 of 2019
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
