2024 (4) TMI 600 - HC - Indian Laws

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

Dashrath Kushwaha S/o Shri Kammod Kushwaha, Suryabhan Shyamkuwar, Bhura Prasad, Ramesh Kumar, Smt. Sheela Bai Chouhan, Ainun Naiem Versus Union Of India, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax

The HC overturned the CAT, Jabalpur Bench's decision, which denied regularization to petitioners serving as casual/daily wage workers for over 10 years. ... Regularization of petitioners who had served as casual/daily wage workers for a period of more than 10 years when decision in Uma Devi was pronounced by Apex Court [2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] - Reason for Tribunal's disinclination to grant relief was that no material could be brought on record to establish that appointment of petitioners was not illegal but merely irregular. HELD THAT:- It is not dispute at the Bar by learned counsel for employer that the petitioners are equally situated as Ravi Verma & Ors [supra] for having completed more than 10 years of casual/daily wage services on the date 10.04.2006 when decision in Uma Devi was pronounced by Apex Court [2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT]. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for employer that the petitioners herein were also appointed in similar manner as the case of Ravi Verma & Ors. and thus their appointments were not illegal but merely irregular and, therefore this Court is of the considered view that the benefit flowing from the decision of Uma Devi specially the directions in paragraph 53 of the said judgment squarely apply to the petitioners who are thus entitled to the same relief as extended by the Apex Court to Ravi Verma & Ors. The period of 10 years which was pre-requisite for consideration for regularization as one time measure vide para 53 of Apex Court decision in Uma Devi, has been completed by all the petitioners herein. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is identical to the case of Ravi Verma and Ors. Accordingly, the objection raised by Shri Gopi Chourasia - Advocate on behalf of appellant stands rejected. 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.