Court Grants Regularization for Long-Term Casual Workers, Overturns Denial, Aligns with Key Precedent.

The HC overturned the CAT, Jabalpur Bench's decision, which denied regularization to petitioners serving as casual/daily wage workers for over 10 years. The HC found the petitioners' appointments irregular, not illegal, aligning with the Uma Devi judgment. It directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services from 2006, granting consequential benefits within three months, with interest applicable for delays. The HC dismissed the employer's objections, affirming the petitioners' entitlement to regularization similar to the Ravi Verma case.

---

---

Issues involved:
The legality and validity of the final order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench rejecting the claim for regularization of petitioners who served as casual/daily wage workers for over 10 years on the date of decision in Uma Devi's case.

Summary:

Issue 1: Assailing the Tribunal's Decision
The petition challenges the final order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, which denied regularization to petitioners who had served as casual/daily wage workers for more than 10 years by the date of the Uma Devi case decision in 2006.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Disinclination
The Tribunal declined relief due to the lack of evidence to establish that the petitioners' appointments were not illegal but irregular.

Issue 3: Comparison with Ravi Verma Case
Reference was made to the Ravi Verma case by the petitioners' counsel, highlighting similarities in the petitioners' situation with Ravi Verma & Ors., leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as granted in the Uma Devi judgment.

Issue 4: Applicability of Uma Devi Judgment
The Court affirmed that the petitioners' appointments were irregular, not illegal, and thus, they were entitled to the benefits outlined in the Uma Devi judgment, particularly the directions in paragraph 53.

Issue 5: Relevant Portion of Ravi Verma Judgment
The Court reproduced the relevant portion of the Ravi Verma judgment, emphasizing the need for regularization of services of irregularly appointed employees who had worked for over 10 years in duly sanctioned posts.

Issue 6: Similar Treatment for Petitioners
Based on the Ravi Verma judgment, the Court concluded that similar treatment should be extended to the petitioners as to Ravi Verma & Ors.

Issue 7: Employer's Contentions
The employer's argument that the petitioners were not granted temporary status under the scheme was rejected, as the petitioners had completed the 10-year period required for regularization, similar to Ravi Verma & Ors.

Issue 8: Objection Rejection
The objection raised by the employer's counsel was dismissed, affirming that the petitioners' case was identical to Ravi Verma & Ors., and thus, they were entitled to regularization.

Issue 9: Court's Decision
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services from 2006, with consequential benefits to be granted within three months, failing which interest would be applicable.

---