Union Of INDIA vs. C.Ajay Kumar

Held

The Court held that the contesting respondents, having served for 2-3 decades continuously, deserved consideration for regularization of their services, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case. The Court noted that other Commissionerates had regularized the services of similarly situated casual workers based on the Umadevi's case. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to re-examine the case of the contesting respondents and consider their regularization. The Court set aside the CAT's direction to confer temporary status, finding it contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohan Pal's case. The respondents were granted liberty to submit individual representations to the CBIC for regularization, which the CBIC was directed to consider within six months.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and Principal Commissioner of Central GST, Hyderabad, challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). These orders directed the regularization of services for contingent/casual laborers who had served for over two to three decades without break. The petitioners argued that the Hyderabad Commissionerate's stance differed from other Commissionerates across the country, which had regularized similar employees based on Supreme Court judgments. The respondents are contingent/casual laborers who have been in service for an extended period, seeking regularization. The CAT had previously directed the petitioners to consider temporary status and regularization for these employees. The petitioners rejected these cases, leading to the present writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contesting respondents, who have rendered 2-3 decades of service as contingent/casual laborers, are entitled to regularization of their services in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the Hyderabad Commissionerate's approach of not regularizing the services of the contesting respondents was consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and that granting temporary status was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohan Pal's case. They contended that the respondents were not entitled to temporary status, which was inconsistent with the stand taken by other Commissionerates. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, by virtue of their long service (2-3 decades) without break, argued for regularization. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Nihal Singh's case and Umadevi's case, which suggest regularization for employees who have served for extended periods, even if initially appointed against non-sanctioned posts. They highlighted that other Commissionerates had regularized similar employees.