The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that decades of continuous casual service in government institutions cannot be dismissed on technical grounds. In a decisive departure from rigid adherence to procedural formalities, the Tribunal invoked recent Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that prolonged, uninterrupted service in essential roles creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, irrespective of initial contractual labels.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Babuli Rout, a casual labourer employed by the Archaeological Survey of India since 1991, was engaged without a sanctioned post and paid at 1/30th of the regular pay scale. Despite performing duties integral to the functioning of the organization for over three decades, his service remained classified as casual. In 2019, his application for regularization was rejected on the grounds that he did not meet the 240-day annual service threshold prescribed under the Department of Personnel and Training’s 1993 Office Memorandum.
Procedural History
- 1991: Applicant began work as a casual labourer without a formal appointment order
- 2008: Granted 1/30th pay scale under DoP&T OM dated 10.09.1993
- 2019: Application for regularization rejected by respondents citing non-compliance with DoP&T conditions
- 2020: Filed Original Application (OA No. 260/00125 of 2020) before CAT Cuttack seeking quashing of rejection order and regularization with consequential benefits
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the 2019 rejection order and directed regularization of his service with retrospective effect from 1991, along with payment of arrears, pension, and other benefits on par with regular employees.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether long-term casual employment in a permanent, recurring role - spanning over 30 years - can be denied regularization solely on the basis of non-compliance with procedural conditions, when the work performed is indistinguishable from that of regular staff and similarly placed employees have already been regularized.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on recent Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam (2025), and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2026) to argue that the Uma Devi doctrine cannot be weaponized to perpetuate exploitation. He emphasized that the applicant’s service was continuous, uninterrupted, and essential; that he was promoted through departmental committees; and that 455 other similarly situated casual workers had already been regularized, making his denial a violation of Article 14 and Article 16. He contended that the DoP&T conditions were not mandatory where the nature of work is permanent.
For the Respondent
The respondents relied on Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka (2006) to argue that regularization cannot be granted absent statutory rules or sanctioned posts. They maintained that the applicant was never appointed against a permanent vacancy and that the 1993 DoP&T OM provided the exclusive framework for regularization, which he failed to satisfy. They further argued that granting relief would undermine the constitutional scheme of public employment.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal undertook a comprehensive review of evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence, distinguishing between illegal appointments and irregular engagements as clarified in Uma Devi. It held that the respondents’ reliance on Uma Devi was misplaced, as that judgment explicitly permits regularization where work is permanent, service is continuous, and appointments are not illegal but merely procedurally irregular.
"The State 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."
The Court emphasized that the applicant’s role was not seasonal or temporary but essential and recurring, mirroring that of regular staff. The fact that he was promoted through departmental committees and had served for over 30 years without any termination or review of his status indicated an implicit recognition of his permanent role. The Tribunal further noted that the respondents had already regularized 455 similarly placed workers, rendering the denial to the applicant arbitrary and violative of equality under Articles 14 and 16.
The Court rejected the argument that the DoP&T 1993 conditions were absolute, observing that such conditions cannot override constitutional obligations where the nature of work is permanent. It cited Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024) to affirm that the substantive nature of employment - determined by actual duties, duration, and institutional recognition - supersedes the initial label of "casual" or "temporary."
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Tribunal held that prolonged, uninterrupted casual service in a permanent role entitles an employee to regularization, even if procedural conditions under departmental orders are not met. It quashed the 2019 rejection order and directed the respondents to regularize the applicant’s service with retrospective effect from the date of regularization of the other 455 workers, along with arrears and benefits, within 90 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularization Is Not a Matter of Grace, But a Constitutional Obligation
- Practitioners must now argue that Article 14 and 16 impose a duty on the State to regularize workers who have performed essential functions for over a decade
- The mere existence of a temporary label or non-compliance with internal circulars cannot override the substantive nature of service
- Where work is permanent, the State must create sanctioned posts - not deny rights on technicalities
Uma Devi Cannot Be Used as a Shield Against Long-Term Exploitation
- The Uma Devi judgment permits regularization for irregular but not illegal appointments
- Government departments must now prove that their refusal to regularize is based on genuine administrative constraints, not systemic evasion
- Courts will draw adverse inferences where muster rolls or establishment records are not produced
Parity Among Similarly Situated Workers Is Mandatory
- If 455 or more casual workers in the same cadre have been regularized, denying the same to another is a clear violation of equality principle
- Practitioners should compile lists of regularized comparators and file them as evidence in all pending cases
- Administrative arbitrariness will be struck down even in absence of a specific statutory provision
