Regularisation Can't Be Denied To Casual Workers If Other Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Were Regularised : Supreme Court

Applying the principle of parity, the Supreme Court has regularized the services of four sweepers, noting that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others who are similarly situated.

A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, holding that it had erred in declining to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to regularise the appellants' services, despite the appellants having performed work of a perennial nature for more than a decade

Briefly put, the appellants were engaged between 1993 and 1998 as sweepers and a cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Their engagement followed Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews, and they continued working for several years on a daily-wage basis.

In 2011–2012, the department began outsourcing the same work, following which the appellants' requests for regularisation were rejected. Both the CAT (2015) and the High Court (2019) denied relief, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), on the ground that the appellants had not completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10 April 2006.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the appellants stood on the same footing as other employees whose services had already been regularised by the Supreme Court in Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India (2018), and that the respondent department acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily in denying the appellants the same benefit.

“we are of the view that the services of the appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, whose services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed by this Court.”, the court held.

“we find that the present appellants also being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated from the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.”, the court added.

The Court rejected the department's reliance on Umadevi to justify its decision not to regularise the Appellants. Referring to the recent decision in Jaggo v. Union of India, where the Court clarified that Umadevi was never intended to permanently shut the door on long-serving workers appointed through irregular, but not illegal, processes.

The Court reiterated that appointments made through Employment Exchange sponsorship, followed by interviews, could not be termed “backdoor” or illegal. Procedural shortcomings at the time of engagement, the Court held, cannot be used to deny substantive rights that have accrued through long, continuous service, as held in Jaggo.

“…the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra). The High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra).”, the court held.

“The services of the appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from today.”, the court ordered.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. (Not Present) Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Nidhi Khanna Mr. Ishan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

For interveners Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR