Paramjeet singh vs REVENUE on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. ​ The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief: “i). That the impugned order dated 24.4.2023 (Annexure A-14) qua applicant be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicants for regularization of their services, in the interest of justice, particularly, in view of the facts that services of number of Casual Labourers (part timers) working in the same department have been regularized by the respondent department. Or alternatively, The respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.'s No. 613/2011 titled as G. Shanker Reddy & Ors vs Union of India & Ors, decided on 26.7.2012, O.A. No. 800/2012 titled as P. Thirupathaiah & Ors vs Union of India and Ors, decided on 25.2.2014 which stands implemented by the respondents vide order dated 16.1.2019, 17.1.2019. After regularization the applicants be also switched over to Old Pension Scheme by counting their daily wage service. ii). That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any other order in favour of the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. iv). That cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicants.”

2. ​ Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicants, are that the applicants were initially engaged directly by the respondents as Frash on daily-wage basis between 1995 and 1998 and have been continuously discharging their duties without any break, with their wages being paid directly by the department.

3. ​ The applicants claim that, though subsequently treated as contractor’s employees, their status as direct employees has already been adjudicated in their favour. In this regard, they rely upon the order dated 14.08.2002 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 800/CH/2001, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 23.05.2003 in CWP No. 7983/CAT/2003. The applicants thereafter filed O.A. No. 448/PB/2004, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure A-1) in terms of the decision in Kiran Pal & Others, subject to the outcome of the pending SLP. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court, which allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 02.12.2009

(Annexure A-2). The applicants challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, vide order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure A-3), held that there was direct evidence showing the applicants to be direct employees of the respondent department.

4. ​ It is further pleaded that the respondents thereafter rejected the applicants’ claim for regularization vide order dated 17.06.2013, compelling them to file O.A. No. 922/PB/2013. The said O.A. was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure A-4), in terms of the decision in Jasbir Singh (Annexure A-5). In compliance thereof, the respondents granted the applicants the minimum of the pay scale vide order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure A-6), pursuant to Government of India O.M. dated 07.06.1988. The applicants contend that despite having rendered about 26 to 29 years of service, their services have still not been regularized.

5. ​ The applicants further rely upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure A-7), issued pursuant to the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (Civil Appeal No.3595-3612/1999), submitting that their case for regularization ought to have been considered in view of their long and continuous service. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated 19.07.2011 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 16733/2009, Union of India & Others v. S. Rita Mary & Anr., pursuant to which the respondents issued a policy dated 01.01.2020, modified vide letter dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure A-8), under which, according to the applicants, the services of similarly situated employees involved in litigation were regularized, whereas non-litigant employees such as the applicants were discriminated against. It is further stated that another letter dated

24.02.2021 was issued for regularization of part-time casual labourers, whereas the applicants, being full-time workers, were denied similar benefit.

6. ​ The applicants further submit that, instead of regularizing their services, the respondents issued a letter dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure A-12) indicating filling up of the posts of MTS and Havildar through the Staff Selection Commission. The applicants thereafter served a legal notice dated 31.01.2023 seeking regularization and grant of Temporary Status (Annexure A-13). The respondents rejected their claim by the impugned speaking order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-14), principally on the grounds that the applicants had been engaged through a contractor and were not engaged against sanctioned posts.

7. ​ Assailing the impugned order, the applicants contend that the issue of their status as direct employees already stands concluded by the order dated 19.11.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the subsequent orders of this Tribunal. They further submit that the plea regarding engagement through an unregistered contractor is contrary to the earlier adjudication. It is also contended that 4647 additional temporary posts, including 666 posts of Sepoy and 60 posts of Peon, were created vide letter dated 07.08.2007, and that vacancies arising from promotions and retirements of Group-D employees have remained unfilled since 2001.

8. ​ Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the applicants have been working continuously for the last more than 26 years, keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14831 of 2024 titled Jaggo v Union of India’, decided on 20.12.2024, Civil Appeal No.8558

of 2018, titled ‘Dharam Singh and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, decided on 19.08.2025 and Civil Appeal No.8158-7179 of 2024 titled ‘Shripal and another v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, decided on 31.01.2025, the employees who have continuously worked for more than 10 years, are entitled for the regularization of their services and no objection can be taken on such regularization based upon non-availability of the post or even fulfilling the requisite qualifications.

9. ​ The respondents by way of written statement submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Frash/Sweeper in Jalandhar Commissionerate and that the applicants do not possess the requisite qualifications under the applicable Recruitment Rules. Reliance is placed upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure R-1) and the Central Excise and Customs Department, Havaldar and Head Havaldar (Group ‘C’) Recruitment Rules, 2015, notified vide GSR No. 233(E) dated 30.03.2015, under which the post of Havaldar is required to be filled 100% through direct recruitment by the Staff Selection Commission. It is submitted that although the applicants were treated as direct employees pursuant to the orders passed in Kiran Pal & Others v. Union of India & Others, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide judgment dated 02.12.2009, had set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 18.10.2005 and held, relying upon Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, that daily wagers cannot claim regularization or a declaration of being direct employees.

10. ​ The respondents further submit that the applicants were never appointed against any sanctioned or vacant posts and are presently receiving only minimum wages/pay on daily basis pursuant to the Tribunal’s judgment dated 24.09.2014 in O.A. No. 922/PB/2013, whereby their wages were directed to be protected. According to the respondents, mere long continuation in service does not confer any vested right to regularization. In support, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Chief Officer, Municipal Council & Anr. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Anr., W.P. No. 4129 of 2009, decided on 06.05.2024. It is also submitted that the applicants were initially engaged through a contractor and were subsequently, after litigation, were granted minimum pay on daily basis pursuant to DoP&T O.M. dated 07.06.1988.

11. ​ It is further submitted that the Policy dated 01.01.2020, modified vide letter dated 06.02.2020, under which the services of certain litigating employees were regularized, is not applicable to the applicants. The respondents place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.02.2023 in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, contending that regularization cannot be claimed where the initial appointment was not made by the competent authority and the employees were not working against sanctioned posts.

12. ​ The respondents further submit that the applicants’ claim based upon the judgment dated 24.09.2014 in O.A. No. 922/PB/2013 is misconceived, as the said judgment only directed payment of wages at par with similarly situated juniors. It is contended that the applicants have already been treated as direct employees for the limited purpose of payment of wages pursuant to the orders dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

24.09.2014 passed by this Tribunal, but such treatment does not make them eligible for regularization.

13. ​ We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the material available on record.

14. ​ From the pleadings itself, it is admitted fact that the applicants have been continuously working in the respondent department since the period 1995–1998 and have been discharging duties on daily-wage basis for a considerable length of time. They have not been regularized in service and are presently being paid the minimum of the applicable pay scale on daily-wage basis pursuant to the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation. In particular, the respondents issued order dated 14.08.2015 granting them the benefit of minimum pay in terms of the DoP&T O.M. dated 07.06.1988.

15. ​ The parties have been engaged in substantial earlier litigation concerning the status of the applicants and their claim for service benefits, including proceedings in O.A. No. 800/CH/2001, CWP No. 7983/CAT/2003, O.A. No. 448/PB/2004, the proceedings culminating in the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and thereafter O.A. No. 922/PB/2013 before this Tribunal.

16. ​ It is further undisputed that the applicants' services have not been regularized and that their claim for regularization and Temporary Status, raised through legal notice dated 31.01.2023, came to be rejected by the respondents vide the impugned speaking order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-14).

17. ​ The respondents also do not dispute that the applicants have been continued in service and paid wages pursuant to the aforesaid orders. However, the parties are at variance as to the legal character of such engagement and the consequences flowing therefrom. While the applicants contend that their status as direct employees of the department already stands concluded by the earlier judicial proceedings, the respondents contend that they were initially engaged through a contractor, were never appointed against sanctioned posts, and that the earlier orders conferred upon them only the limited benefit of minimum wages/pay and did not create any right to regularization.

18. ​ The issue with regard to the regularization of various part time employees as well as temporary employees, who had sufficiently long period of service to their credit came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo’s case (supra), wherein by placing reliance upon the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in those cases where an employee has 10 years of service in their credit, his/her services should be regularized so as to avoid any prejudice to the workman. Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh’s case (supra), while placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in Uma Devi’s case (supra), as well as the judgments in Jaggo’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra) has held as under:- “19 (i) Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent)

and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.”

19. ​ Further it may be noticed that in case an employee is not fulfilling the qualification, how the said employee has been allowed to work for a period of more than 26 years and the said employee has been performing the duties of the post in a manner required, then such employee has to be treated as a fit employee to work on that post and for the purposes of regularization, such kind of hindrance qua qualification cannot be brought into notice.

20. ​ In view of the foregoing discussion, and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 4097 of 2019, the present Original Application deserves to be allowed. The applicants have been continuously working in the respondent department since 1995–1998, and their claim for regularization is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.

21. ​ Accordingly, the impugned speaking order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-14) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the applicants for regularization of their services in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, keeping in view their long and continuous service and the nature of duties performed by them. The respondents shall take an appropriate decision by creating supernumerary posts, if required, in accordance with the applicable legal principles, without rejecting the applicants’ claims solely on the ground of non-availability of sanctioned posts.

22. ​ The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequential service and monetary benefits, if admissible, shall be determined in accordance with the applicable rules and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. No order as to costs.

(ANJALI BHAWRA)​ ​ ​ ​ (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) ​ Member (A)​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Member (J) bp