Tapan Kumar Nayak vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 9 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant for regularization for the post of Group D/MTS has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant against the vacancy any Group D/GDS Post available in the dept; b) To direct the respondents to made all efforts to treat the applicant as full time casual worker & thereafter regularize the services of the applicant against the vacancy available in the office or other offices; c) To pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in this case.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows: 2.1 That, this case is the most unfortunate case from where your Lordships will imagine how the applicant is subjected to

Kalpeswar Behera sheer harassment for which the applicant challenges the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the applicant for regularization as he is continuing as casual worker since 2001 till today which is exfacie illegal and arbitrary action of the Respondents and against the judge made laws and higher authority order. That, the relevant factual matters leading to this Original application are that the applicant including 15 persons were engaged as ED substitutes against the vacancy of ED Mailman under RMS North Division (Bhubaneswar RMS) in the year 1984 & duty was allotted to him till 10.06.1989. Thereafter, the applicant alongwith other 15 persons was continuously engaged as Mazdoors & allowed to perform 5 hrs per day & per day with basic pay plus DA at par with corresponding scale of Group-D cadre employees of postal department from the year 2001 i.e. w.e.f. 01.02.2001 as per letter dt.06.02.2001. 2.2 That, while they were working as such, declared as Part time casual workers & paid the basic pay of Group-D staff with all usual DA in pro rata basis by the order of the Respondents, the regular staff were paid GP of Rs.1800/- as per

Kalpeswar Behera recommendation of 6th CPC, however were paid of Rs.1300/- as GP, for which, they differently made representations. That, as per Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme vide G.I. Dept. of Posts letter dt. 12.04.1991. In the said scheme stipulates that Temporary Status would be conferred on the casual labourers as on 19.11.1989 & who continue to be currently employed & have rendered continuous service of at least one year, during the year they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week) & when there will be regular vacancy of Group-D, the temporary status workers be regularized first & till then no outsider be engaged & said scheme was extended the cut off date upto 09.10.1993. As per G.I. Dept. of Posts letter dt. 17.05.1989, the substitutes are also entitled for consideration of regularization. However, the Respondents did not consider for regularization of the applicant. Again as per G.I. Dept. Posts issued vide OM dt. 16.09.1992 wherein it stipulates that the Part time casual labourers/Mazdoors working for 5 hours daily or more are to be made full time casual labourers. Despite such OM the applicant along with other 15 persons were not declared as full time casual labourers. Though the regular vacant post of

Kalpeswar Behera

Group-D is/was available in the said office, however the Respondents using the applicant as substitutes. Again all the 16 persons made representation to the Respondent No.3 for enhance the duty upto 8 hours with all benefits & also prayed for regularization in against Gr-D vacant post. As per the said scheme in section-3 stipulates that the part time casual labourers are to be regularized as full time & also said scheme also stipulates in section-5 that the casual labourers on completion of 3 years of service of temporary status, shall be treated at par with Gr-D employees of the dept. of Posts. 2.3 That, vide letter dt. 05.04.2006 issued by the Respondent No.3 to the SRO, RMS (N) Division, Bhubaneswar stating therein that extension of duty hours of casual Mazdoors working in their office, non consideration of his representation, as the similarly placed persons NarendraParida&15 others including the applicant filed OA No.678/2010 before this Honble court which was disposed of on 04.11.2010 directed to the Respondents to dispose of the applicant's representation & the Respondents rejected the grievance on 28.01.2011. Being aggrieved, except the applicant, other similarly placed persons filed OA No.227/2011 before this Honble Court, which was disposed of on

Kalpeswar Behera

08.05.2012 & Respondents challenging the said order filed W.P. (C) No.20506/2012 before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. 2.4 The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dt. 05.05.2014 while confirming the order passed by this Hon'ble court has held that "we are of the considered view that the aforesaid circular causes no impediment whatsoever for the department of posts in regularizing the applicants as full time casual labourers who works for 5 hours or more." Thereafter other similarly placed persons filed CP No.63/2012 before Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which was dropped on 12.03.2015. That, accordingly, the Respondents implementing this Hon'ble court's order vides order dt.05.08.2014, the persons who filed the case except the applicant in other persons given benefit of part time casual worker w.e.f. 1994. As the applicant was the similarly placed persons in above noted case, filed OA No.829/2014 before this Hon'ble court which was disposed of on 21.11.2014 has categorically directed the applicant to make representation before the appropriate authority & Respondent-Authorities will dispose of the same as per the extant rules & regulations within a period of another months. Accordingly the applicant made

Kalpeswar Behera representation in time by enclosing the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 2.5 That, in considering of the applicant's representation, the Respondent No.3 vide its letter dt. 09.03.2015 stating therein that as per approval of the competent authority, the applicant was treated as Part Time Casual labourer w.e.f. 01.05.1994 & also stipulates that he will avail all the benefits as admissible as per rules at par with 15 Part time Casual labourers, BBSR RMS (Similarly placed persons) who were already declared MTS in view of letter dt. 05.08.2014. Accordingly vide letter dt. 17.10.2015 prepared by the Respondent No.3 directed for rotational of duty period of Part Time casual labourer of 5 hours for day. That, the other similarly placed 15 persons except the applicant filed OA No.931/2015 before this Hon'ble court for non compliance of this Hon'ble courts earlier order in full i.e. for regularization of their service by treating them as full time casual worker which was rejected by the Respondent No.3 dt.10.02.2015 & 25.02.2015, however the similarly placed persons got information through RTI Act vide letter dt. 12/23.11.2015 wherein it was stated that the vacancies under the Respondents where they were working. This Hon'ble courts vide order dt. 08.12.2023 taking into all the

Kalpeswar Behera aspects of Rules & law while quashing both the orders of 2015 has held that “In view of the discussions made above, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter and in course of hearing to justify the impugned orders, do not sound to judicial conscience. Hence, the impugned orders dated 10.02.2015 (A/9) and 25.02.2015 (A/10) are hereby quashed with direction to the respondents to strictly comply the order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2012 in OA 227/2011, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.20506/2012 vide order dated 05.05.2014 taking into consideration the Recruitment Rules for appointment to Group-D existing prior to new Recruitment Rules for MTS notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part- IISection-3, Sub Section (i) dated 20.12.2010 circulated vide Directorate letter No. 37- 33/2009-SPB-I dated 28.01.2011 in which 25% vacancies in MTS for the recruitment year is reserved for casual labourers came into effect. While giving consideration the Respondents should also take into consideration the decision of the Hyderabad Bench dated 25.11.1999 in O.A. No. 398 of 1998 (Pampana Appalaraju -v- Post Master General & another), which was upheld by the

Kalpeswar Behera

Hon’ble Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 13718/2011 dated 07.09.2010. The entire exercise shall be completed and the decision taken shall be communicated to each of the applicants in a well reasoned and speaking order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” taking into recruitment rules for appointment to Group-D existing prior to new recruitment rules for MTS noticed in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, part- II-Section-3, sub section- (i) dt. 20.12.2010 circulated vide Directorate letter No.37-33/2009-SPB-1 dated 28.01.2011 in which 25% vacancies in MTS for the recruitment year is reserved for casual labourers came into effect. While giving consideration the Respondents should also take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad dated 25.11.1999 in OA No.398/1998 which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.13718/2011 dated 07.09.2010. The entire exercise shall be completed & the decision taken shall be communicated to each of the applicants in a well reasoned& speaking order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the applicant is similarly placed persons & made representation to the Respondent No.2 dt.

Kalpeswar Behera

14.04.2024 to extend the similar benefit as order passed by this Hon'ble Court passed in OA No. 931/2015 which was disposed of on 08.12.2023. 2.6 That, the applicant respectfully submits that he has satisfied the ingredients of the circulars governing in the field and unless there is anything adverse against him, he has to be absorbed on regular basis. The delay in regularization has an adverse impact on their future prospect of employment. Right to life is a fundamental right as enshrined under Art 21 of the constitution of India with meager / scanty amount, it is very difficult on his part to maintain his family members. Hence the applicant files this present OA.

3. The respondents have filed their counter stating as follows: 3.1 In pursuance of the order dated 21.11.2014 of Hon'ble CAT Cuttack Bench Cuttack in OA No.260/00829/2014 filed by the applicant and approval of the Respondents No.2 vide letter no.Est/Misc-Court Cases/SSRM/2015 dated 05.03.2015 the applicant was treated as Part Time Casual Labourer with effect from 01.05.1994 vide letter no. G9/8-5/2014 dated 09.03.2015 of Respondents No.3.Again the applicant has availed all the

Kalpeswar Behera benefits as admissible as per rule at par with other 15 Part Time Casual Labourer of Bhubaneswar RMS who were already declared as Part Time Casual Labourer in pursuance of the order dated 05.05.2014 of the Hon'ble Odisha High Court in WP (C) No.20506/2012 and WP (C) No.12177/2013, order dated 08.05.2012 of Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.227/2011 and approval of the competent authority communicated vide Respondents No.2 letter No.LC/70-25/2013 dated 05.08.2014. 3.2 The applicant has given his representation to Respondent No.2 on 14.04.2024 and prayed to consider his case taking into account the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.931/2015 disposed off on 08.12.2023 wherein similarly placed persons except him filed the above noted case, in matter of regularization in the said post which he have continued since 1994.Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA. 3.3 That, the order dated 05.12.2023 in OA No.931/2015 is still under purview of examination and has not been completed yet. Hence, the plea of the applicant is unjustified and untenable.

Kalpeswar Behera

That, it is humbly submitted that, the applicant has already admitted that "he is not similarly placed persons in the OA No.931/2015" in para-1 of the ibid OA. The order dated 05.12.2023 in OA No.931/2015 is still under purview of examination and has not been completed. Hence the question of harassment does not arise and the plea of the applicant is unjustified and untenable. 3.4 That it is humbly submitted that, the applicant has not mentioned his case rather others which is not related to him as he has already admitted that he is not an applicant in OA No.931/2015 but similarly placed. Hence, the plea of the applicant is baseless. That it is humbly submitted that, as per GI Dept of Post order No-37-33/2009-SPBI dtd 28.01.2011 the recruitment rules-2010 for Multi Tasking Staff in Dept of Post 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of recruiting and Division or Unit, on the basis of selection-cum- seniority.

i. 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of recruiting and Division or Unit, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority.

ii. A) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of competition examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Division or Unit falling which by:

Kalpeswar Behera

B) Direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection cum-seniority;

iii) A) 25% by appointment of casual laborers conferred with temporary status on the basis of selection cum seniority falling which by: B) Appointment of casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for 8 full hours in a day on the basis of selection cum seniority falling which by: C) Appointment of casual laborers conferred with temporary status in the neighboring Division or Unit on the basis of selection cum seniority falling which by: D) Appointment of casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for 8 full hours in a day in the neighboring Division or Unit, on the basis of selection cum seniority falling which by: E) Appointment of part time casual laborers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection cum seniority falling which by;

F) By direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sewaks of the basis of their seniority in the Division or Unit. Failing (i), (ii) and (iii) above by direct recruitment from open market. The applicant was not engaged prior to 01.09.1993, hence his case has not been considered. Hence, the plea of the applicant is unjustified and untenable. 3.5 That, the applicant has already appointed by Respondents No.3 as part time casual labourer vide letter no.G9/8-5/2014 dated 09.03.2015. However, as per para-10 above, the applicant was not engaged prior to 01.09.1993, hence he is not eligible for any regularization as per his claims. Hence, the plea of the applicant is unjustified and untenable. That in reply to the averments made in 5.2 of the O.A, it is humbly submitted that

Kalpeswar Behera though the applicant has engaged for more than 30 years of service as part time casual labourer as per the order no.G9/8- 5/2014 dated 09.03.2015 in pursuance to order dated 21.11.2014 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.260/00829/2014 filed by the applicant and approval of the Est/Misc-Court No.2 vide letter no Cases/SSRM/2015 dated 05.03.2015. The Respondents are not Respondents engaging anyone on contractual basis. Hence, the plea of the applicant is not tenable. 3.6 Since, the applicant was not engaged prior to 01.09.1993, his case cannot be considered for regularization. That it is humbly submitted that, the applicant has submitted his representation to Respondents No.2 on 14.04.2024. Due to non- disposal of his representation he has filed this OA. Further, the applicant had not regularized by Respondents No.3, as per Departmental Rules mentioned above. Hence, the plea of the applicant is not tenable. That it is humbly submitted that, the applicant still continuing as Part Time Casual Labourer without any break. Hence, the averment made by the applicant is baseless and without any merit.

Kalpeswar Behera

3.7 That it is humbly submitted that, as per Department of Posts letter no. 37-33/2009-SPBI dtd 28.01.2011, the Applicant has not been engaged prior to 01.09.1993. Therefore, his case does not come for regularization. Hence, the plea of the applicant is not tenable. That the case of the Applicant is not similar to Uma Devi Vs State of Karnataka and Amarkant Rai Vrs State of Bihar. Therefore, the Applicant is not eligible for the benefits of the case. 3.8 That in pursuance of the order dated 21.11.2014 of Hon'ble CAT Cuttack Bench Cuttack in OA No.260/00829/2014 filed by the applicant and approval of the Respondents letter no.Est/Misc-Court No.2 vide Cases/SSRM/2015 dated 05.03.2015 the applicant was treated as Part Time Casual Labourer with effect from 01.05.1994 vide letter no. G9/8- 5/2014 dated 09.03.2015 of Respondents No.3. Further, the applicant has availed all the benefits as admissible as per rule if any at par with other 15 Part Time Casual Labourer of Bhubaneswar RMS who were already declared as Part Time Casual Labourer in pursuance of the order dated 05.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Odisha High Court in WP (C) No.20506/2012 and WP (C) No.12177/2013, order dated 08.05.2012 of Hon'ble CAT,

Kalpeswar Behera

Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.227/2011 and approval of the competent authority communicated vide Respondents No.2 letter No.LC/70-25/2013 dated 05.08.2014. Hence, the act of the Respondents is not against the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The plea of the applicant is not tenable. 3.9 That it is humbly submitted that, the applicant has given his representation to Respondent No.2 on 14.04.2024 and prayed taking into account the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.931/2015 disposed off on 08.12.2023 wherein similarly placed persons except him filed the above noted case, in matter of regularization in the said post which he have continued since 1994. The order dated 05.12.2023 in OA No.931/2015 is still under purview of examination and has not been completed yet. However, hence his case was not considered. Therefore, the plea of the applicant is untenable. 3.10 That the Respondents-Departments have given benefits of regularization as per Departmental Rules and Regulations mentioned in para-10 above and as per changes made from times to time. The act of the Respondents is not against the Article 14

Kalpeswar Behera and 16 of the Constitution of India. The plea of the applicant is not tenable. That it is humbly submitted that, the applicant is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal citing Article 14 & 16, which is not applicable in this case. The order has been issued by Respondents No.2 and 3 are as per Departmental Rules and does not violate Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by him in the OA.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. In a similar case of employees placed similarly with the applicant in this OA, in OA No. 931 of 2015, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2023 had passed following orders:

3. Heard. We have considered the submissions, with reference to the pleadings and documents placed in support thereof of the respective parties. We have also gone through the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2012 in OA 227/2011, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 05.05.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 2050/2012 so also the order dated 25.11.1999 of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.398 of 1998 (PampanaAppalaraju -v- Post Master General & another), which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Facts of the matter are that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 678/2003 praying inter alia for direction to the respondents to absorb/regularize/appoint them against the existing Group-D vacancies in N Division under the Respondents department, which was disposed of by this Tribunal at the admission stage on 04.11.2010 calling upon the respondents to consider and dispose of their representation pending with them for consideration. In response thereto, the respondents considered the representations of the applicants stating therein that “it is not feasible under

Kalpeswar Behera the existing rule/instructions to give temporary status and regularize the services of the applicants working as Mazdoor in Bhubaneswar RMS as they were not recruited in normal manner, i.e. through employment exchange and their engagement was only from 1.05.1994”. The said order was challenged by the applicants in OA No. 227/2011 wherein, by filing counter, the respondents contested the case of the applicants. This Tribunal, upon hearing both parties, and taking note of the case of the applicants and respondents, disposed of the OA on 08.05.2012 with the following direction: “10. Admittedly, applicants had been working as Substitutes EDs from 1984 onwards. It is also an admitted fact that they were engaged as Mazdoors in 1994 on daily wage basis for five hours per day in different sets of Bhubaneswar RMS with a view to meet the manpower and since then they have been continuing as such. G.1, Dept. of Posts, Lr. No.65-24/88-SPB.1 dated the 17th May, 1989 lays down the ruling regarding Part-time and Full- time Casual Labourers. It has been clarified that all daily wagers working in Post Offices or in RMS Office or in Administrative Offices or PSDS/MMS under different designations (Mazdoor, casual labourer, contingent paid staff, daily wager. daily-rated mazdoor, outsiders) are to be treated as casual labourers. Thus, by the engagement of applicants as Mazdoors their status is deemed to be determined as casual labourers, part-time or full-time, subject to less than eight hours or eight work per day. as the case may be. It is an admitted fact that when the applicants had been working as Substitute EDs they were working as such against the leave vacancies. There is no instructions issued by the Department to the effect that for engagement as Mazdoors from Substitute EDs, names have to be sponsored through the Employment Exchange albeit, it is the sole criterion in so far as engagement of Casual Workers/Labourers under the Respondent-Department is concerned. Since by the instructions/clarification dated 17.5.1989 (supra) issued by the Department of Posts, which was in force when the applicants were engaged as Mazdoors in the year 1994, by the operation of above instructions, applicants' designation as Mazdoors ought to have been treated as casual labourers, Part-time or Full-time, as the case may be. Since it is an admitted position that the applicants' engagement is less than eight houts per day, nothing stands treat them as Part-time casual labourer from 1994. In so far as Kegularization of part-time Casual Labourers as full time is concerned, it has been stipulated in GlDepit Of Posts Lr. No.45-14/92-SPB-1 dated the 16th September, 1992 as under: "If part-time casual labourers are working for five hours or more, it may be examined whether they can be made full time by readjustment or combination of duties However, there should be no engagement of fresh casual labourers"

Kalpeswar Behera

11. In the counter filed, Respondent-Department though have emphasized on the point that applicants having not been sponsored through the Employment Exchange ars not entitled to be bestowed with temporary status, yet, reading between the lines of the instructions issued by the Department of Posts as cited above, gives out a different impression that for engagement of Mazdoor or part-time casual labourer as if there is little scope of engagement as such otherwise than through the Employment Exchange. Had it not been so, then, certainly, there would have been a condition attached to engagement of applicants from Substitute as that of Mazdoors. Having not done so, application of the criterion of engagement as casual labourers through the Employment Exchange in case of the applicants herein is out of place by the reason that the applicants, as observed above, are deemed to have been engaged as part-time casual labourer since 1994 and to this extent, there is no instructions issued by the Department for engagement of part-time casual labourer through the Employment Exchange. For the reasons discussed above, we make the following orders. To treat the applicants as part-time casual labourer from 1994 having due regard to instructions/clarification issued by Department of Posts vide letter dated 17.5.1989.

ii) To examine whether the applicants could be made full time by readjustment or combination of duties as per stipulation in GI Dept of Posts letter dated 16.9.1992.

iii) To examine whether the applicants have served for 480 days in a period of 2 years so as to treat them, for the purposes of recruitment, to have completed one year of service as full time casual labourers, as per Department of Posts vide letter dated 17.5.1989.

iv) Accordingly, rank them in priority at Sl.No.(iii) as has been indicated in letter dated 28.1 2011 (Annexure-A/6).

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the O.A. succeeds to the extent stated above. No costs”

4. Respondents department challenged the aforesaid order of this Tribunal to Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 2050/2012, which was dismissed on 05.05.2014. The relevant portion of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa is extracted below:

Kalpeswar Behera

“5. We fail to understand that, when the department has engaged the applicant-opposite parties out of departmental necessity engaging them essentially as 'Substitutes', they are being deprived of the benefits of the Circular dated 17th May, 1989 since this Circular clarifies that all daily-wage workers working in Post Offices, or in RMS Offices or in Administrative Offices etc. under different designations (Mazdoor, casual labourer, contingent paid staff, daily wager, daily-rated mazdoor, outsiders) are to be treated as Casual Labourers. It is further clarified that if such labourers had been engaged for a period of more than eight hours a day, should be described as "full-time casual labourers" and those who are engaged for a period of less than 8 hours a day, were described as "part-time casual labourers". Therefore, the said Circular begins with the term "all daily wagers" and admittedly, the applicant- opposite parties are all daily wagers Hence, they cannot be treated as Substitutes 'against the vacancies when arose. If such term comes within the definition of the term "part-time" since they were working less than 8 hours a day but insofar as the ban order, in particular, Clause-3 of the Circular dated 16th September, 1992 under Annexure-9 is concerned, it is stated as hereunder: "3. Regularization of part-time Casual Labourers as full-time.- If part-time casual labourers are working for five hours or more, it may be examined whether they can be made full-time by readjustment or combination of duties. However, there should be no engagement of fresh casual labourers."

6. In view of the above, the bar above applies only to "no engagement of fresh Casual Labourers" and does not in any manner bar the regularization of "existing Casual Labourers". Hence, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid Circular causes no impediment whatsoever for the Department of Posts in regularizing the applicant-opposite parties as full-time casual labourers who works five hours or more. Therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present writ application.” (emphasis added)

5. The impugned order dated 10.02.2015 (A/9) reads as under: “Sub:-Implementation of order dated 08.05.12 passed in OA 227/2012 of Hon'ble CAT Cuttack bench and upheld by Hon'ble high court Odisha in WP(C) Nо. 20506/2012 filed by Sri Narendra Kumar Parida and others Vrs UOI. Ref:- your letter no D-5/Proposal (Temp. Status) dated 06.02.15 I am directed to intimate that in view of your report under reference there is no justification of considering the 15 (fifteen) PT casual laborer as full time. They cannot be made full time casual labourer against vacant posts of MTS & GDSMM which are under various stages of recruitment or are pending for abolition. I am therefore directed to instruct you to apprise the Hon'ble CAT,

Kalpeswar Behera

Cuttack Bench accordingly complying the orders in letter & spirit. Any failure on your part will be viewed seriously.”

6. The subsequent order dated 25.02.2015 further reads as under: “This is regarding implementation of the Order of the Hon ble CAT, Cuttack Bench dated 08.05.2012 passed in OA No- 227/2011 filed by Sri Narendra Kumar Parida& Others and upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 20506/2012 filed by the Department.

1) The Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dtd. 8.5.2012 has disposed of the original application No- 227/2011 filed by Narendra Kumar Parida and others and the operative portion of the order is as follows:- To treat the applicants as part time casual labourer from 1994 having due regard to instructions/clarification issued by Department of Posts vide letter dtd. 17.5.1989.

To examine whether the applicants could be made full time by readjustment or combination of duties as per stipulation in GI Deptt.of Posts letter dtd. 16.9.1992. To examine whether the applicants have served for 480 days in a period of 2 years so as to treat them, for the purposes of recruitment, to have completed one year of service as full time casual labourers, as per Department of Posts vide letter dtd. 17.5.1989. Accordingly, rank them in priority at SL. No. (iii) as has been indicated in letter dtd. 28.1.2011 (Annexure-A/6.)".

2) In pursuance of the order dated 05.05.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No- 20506/2012 and WP(C) No- 12177/2013, order dated 08.05.2012 of Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack bench, Cuttack in OA No- 227/2011 and approval of the competent authority communicated vide Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle Bhubaneswar letter No-LC/70-25/2013 dated 05.08.2014, the applicants had already been declared as Part Time Casual Labourers with effect from their date of working as mazdoors at Bhubaneswar RMS.

3) That as regards to Para-02 of the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal, with regard to the case of 15 mazdoors who were declared as Part Time Casual Laborers, the feasibility to declare them as Full Time Casual Labourer has been considered sympathetically. It is not feasible to make them Full Time Casual

Kalpeswar Behera

Labourer by readjustment or combination of duties due to lack of sufficient work load.

4) That as regards to Para-03 of the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal the case of said Part Time Casual Labourers for the purpose of recruitment to the Group- D now re-designated as MTS will be treated as Full Time Casual Labourer in terms of DOP letter No. 65-24/88-SPB-I dated 17.05.1989 subject to their eligibility in terms of new Recruitment Rules for MTS notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II-Section-3, Sub Section (i) dated 20.12.2010 circulated vide Directorate letter No. 37- 33/2009-SPB-I dated 28.01.2011 in which 25% vacancies in MTS for the recruitment year is reserved for casual labourers

5) That as regards to Para-04 of the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal, said Part Time Casual Labourers shall rank in priority at SI-III as has been indicated in this office letter No- G9/8-7/2010 dated 28.01.2011 subject to the Recruitment Rules existing on the date of initiation of recruitment process.

That, as submitted in para 2,3,4, and 5 above, the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 08.05.2012 passed in OA No. 227/2011 has been complied with in toto, in letter and spirit.

7. Law is well settled that a judicial order passed by a Court of Law is binding on all concerned, including the Tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum in exercise of appellate or revisional powers. In no circumstance, is there any authority available to be executive to tinker with the order or give any interpretation so as to nullify or render the order nugatory. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of AIIMS, New Delhi –vs- SanjivChauturvedi& Others, Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2019 dated 01.02.2019, is relevant, an excerpt from it is extracted below: “A judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on all concerned, including the Tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum in exercise of appellate or revisional powers. In no circumstance, can a judicial order of a Bench of the Tribunal be nullified or rendered nugatory by its Chairman.”

8. In the case of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board –vs- C.Muddaiah, Appeal (Civil) No. 4108 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as below: “We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any

Kalpeswar Behera reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.”

9. In the case of T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J. Vasudevan, [1995] 5 SCC 619, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when a matter attained finality, it is not open to the respondent to go behind the orders and truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get around the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the order passed by a court.

10. In the case of Mohd. IqbalKhanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, [1994] 4 SCC 34, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if a party is aggrieved by the order, he should take prompt steps to invoke appellate proceedings and cannot ignore the order. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order.

11. The direction of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2012 in OA 227/2011 is very specific to the extent that (i) to treat the applicants as part time casual labourer from 1994 having due regard to instructions/clarification issued by Department of Posts vide letter dtd. 17.5.1989; (ii) to examine whether the applicants could be made full time by readjustment or combination of duties as per stipulation in GI Deptt.of Posts letter dtd. 16.9.1992; (iii) to examine whether the applicants have served for 480 days in a period of 2 years so as to treat them, for the purposes of recruitment, to have completed one year of service as full time casual labourers, as per Department of Posts vide letter dtd. 17.5.1989; and (iv) accordingly, rank them in priority at SL. No. (iii) as has been indicated in letter dtd. 28.1.2011. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa dismissed the Writ Petition No.20506/2012 filed by the respondents vide order dated 05.05.2014 observing therein that Circular dated 16th September, 1992 does not, in any manner, bar the regularization of "existing Casual Labourers" and, therefore, the aforesaid Circular causes no impediment whatsoever for the Department of Posts in regularizing the applicants-opposite parties as full- time casual labourers, who works five hours or more. The respondents rejected claim of the applicants stating therein that the applicants had already been declared as Part Time Casual Labourers with effect from their date of working as mazdoors at Bhubaneswar RMS and it is not feasible to make them full time casual labourer by readjustment/combination of duties for lack of sufficient work load. It was further ordered that they, for the

Kalpeswar Behera

purpose of recruitment to Group-D now re-designated as MTS will be treated as Full Time Casual Labourer in terms of DOP letter No. 65-24/88-SPB-I dated 17.05.1989 subject to their eligibility in terms of new Recruitment Rules for MTS notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II-Section-3, Sub Section (i) dated 20.12.2010 circulated vide Directorate letter No. 37- 33/2009-SPB-I dated 28.01.2011 in which 25% vacancies in MTS for the recruitment year is reserved for casual labourers. This appears to be contrary to the well settled law that the case of the applicants will have to be considered in accordance with the rules existing during the relevant point of time and not by the subsequent rules dated 28.01.2011.

12. We have also gone through the order of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench dated 25.11.1999 in OA 398/1998. This was a case filed by six applicants, who were engaged as Part Time Casual Labourers in RMS Division at Visakhapatnam. They made representation demanding eight hours duty per day. By an order dated 28.04.1997, the respondents department were directed by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication to convert the Part Time Casual Labourers to Full Time Casual Labourers in accordance with the direction given by the APPE Court. The respondents department did not dispute that casual labourers to be treated at par with temporary Group- D employees on completion of three years of continuous service as per the Directorate Letter dated 12.04.1991. It was also not disputed by respondents department that PTCL and FTCL were to be taken to a common panel for the purpose of recruitment to Group-D post and, accordingly, instruction were issued by the department for conversion of PTCL to FTCL w.e.f. 01.05.1998. Taking into all aspect of the matter, the OA was allowed with direction to confer temporary status on applicants from which they became eligible for such conferment after considering the totality of the effect of the referred Government orders. This order was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 13718/2011 dated 07.09.2010.

13. In view of the discussions made above, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter and in course of hearing to justify the impugned orders, do not sound to judicial conscience. Hence, the impugned orders dated 10.02.2015 (A/9) and 25.02.2015 (A/10) are hereby quashed with direction to the respondents to strictly comply the order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2012 in OA 227/2011, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.20506/2012 vide order dated 05.05.2014 taking into consideration the Recruitment Rules for appointment to Group-D existing prior to new Recruitment Rules for MTS notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II-Section-3, Sub Section (i) dated 20.12.2010 circulated vide Directorate letter No. 37- 33/2009-SPB-I dated 28.01.2011 in which 25% vacancies in MTS for the recruitment year is reserved for casual labourers came into effect. While giving consideration the Respondents should also take into consideration the decision of the Hyderabad Bench dated 25.11.1999 in O.A.

Kalpeswar Behera

No. 398 of 1998 (PampanaAppalaraju -v- Post Master General & another), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 13718/2011 dated 07.09.2010. The entire exercise shall be completed and the decision taken shall be communicated to each of the applicants in a well reasoned and speaking order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

7. In another case involving similar issue this Tribunal in OA NO. 497/2025 vide order dated 13.03.2026 had held:

4. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. We find that in the case of Jaggo (supra), the applicants therein were initially engaged on part time basis and were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC. They approached before the Tribunal in Original Application No.2211/2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2018 on the ground that they were not engaged on what it considered “regular vacancies,” that they had not completed what it termed as sufficient “full-time” service (such as meeting a 240-days per year criterion), and that their case did not attract the principles enabling regularization. Soon thereafter, their services were terminated on 27.10.2018. Being aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and subsequent termination, the applicants approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 2018. The Hon’ble High Court after examining the Tribunal’s decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that they were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization, dismissed the Writ Petition thereby upholding the order of the Tribunal dated 17.04.2018 in OA No. 2211/2015. The said order was carried in appeal to Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 20.12.2-24 set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal and allowed the matter by quashing the termination order dated 27.10.2018 with direction for regularization. On examination of the facts noted above with the facts of the present case, we find absolute force on the submissions of the Ld Counsel for the applicants that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), there remains no impediment for this Bench to quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants.

5. We also find that the principle in support of regularization of casual workers set out by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has

Kalpeswar Behera again been re-enforced in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) in the following terms: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal& Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of

Kalpeswar Behera

indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. xxxxxxxxx

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address shortterm or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of

Kalpeswar Behera exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” xxxxxxxxx

16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “adhocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

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

Kalpeswar Behera 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.

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

iii. Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause

(i) , within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is

Kalpeswar Behera held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

6. The aforesaid view has once again been re-enforced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BholaNath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129.

7. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, quoted above, establishes that the Hon’ble Apex Court have made it a principle in favour of regularization of the persons continuing on daily wage/casual/part time casual/ad hoc/contractual basis for years together. We are reminded the fact that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. This principle ensures uniformity, stability, and certainty in the administration of justice, establishing a clear judicial hierarchy where lower courts must follow precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, there can be no quarrel or any dispute to the fact that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra), the applicants are entitled to be regularized and we also direct the respondents to do so.

8. In the result, the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 is hereby quashed and the respondents are hereby commanded to issue the compliance order of regularization in the same terms and conditions as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and BholaNath (supra), within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA and all pending MA, if any, stand disposed of by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. The respondents in their counter has specifically mentioned at para 14 that the applicant has been engaged for more than 30 years of service as part time casual labourer as per the order dated 09.03.2015 in pursuance to order dated 21.11.2014 of

Kalpeswar Behera this Tribunal in OA No. 829/2014 and approval of Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 05.03.2015 wherein it has been mentioned that applicant be treated as Part Time Casual Labourer with effect from 01.05.1994.

9. Since the applicant is working as part time casual labourer for more than 30 years, the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and BholaNath (supra) is applicable. Accordingly the respondents are directed to issue the compliance order of regularization in the same terms and conditions as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra)within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. The OA is accordingly allowed to above extent. Pending MA’s stands disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera