Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India

2026 INSC 156 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) NO.29214 OF 2019)

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants having registered themselves with the

Employment Exchange claim to have worked as casual workers

with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior for a

considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would

be conferred temporary status and their services would be

thereafter regularized, the appellants initially made

representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request

not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench1 by preferring Original Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.02.13 17:04:22 IST Reason: 1 For short, the Tribunal

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 1 of 11 Application No.719 of 2012 with a prayer to consider their cases

for regularization in service. The Tribunal by its judgment dated

13.05.2015 held that the services of the appellants were not liable

to be regularized on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic

criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on 10.04.2006

in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.2. Being aggrieved, the appellants

approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the

aforesaid decision. By the judgment dated 26.08.2019, the High

Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid adjudication and

dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied by the said

judgment, the appellants have come up in appeal.

3. Facts material for considering the case as set-up by the

appellants are that appellants No.1 to 3 came to be engaged as

casual workers on the post of Sweeper from 01.10.1997,

01.05.1998 and 01.10.1997 respectively. Appellant No.4 was

casually engaged on the post of Cook from 27.12.1993. It is their

case that their names were sponsored through the Employment

Exchange and after being duly interviewed, they were engaged as

daily workers. According to them, in terms of Circulars dated

2 2006 INSC 216

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 2 of 11 04.07.2011 and 10.01.2012, the Income Tax Department

proceeded to outsource the work that was being done by the

appellants. They made various representations seeking

regularization of their services considering the period of service

rendered by them as casual workers. It is further the case of the

appellants that services of similarly placed casual workers were

directed to be regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in

Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.3 vide judgment

dated 13.03.2018. In the light of the fact that services of similarly

situated casual workers had been regularized by the Office of the

Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, the appellants sought similar

treatment. Relying upon the decision in Jaggo Vs. Union of India

and Ors.4, it is urged that the engagement of the appellants could

only be termed as “irregular” and not “illegal”. The fact that the

work undertaken by the appellants was sought to be outsourced

indicated that the said work was of a perennial nature and that

only with a view to deprive the appellants of the benefit of

regularization, the outsourcing policy was being implemented. On

these counts, the appellants prayed for appropriate relief.

3 Civil Appeal Nos.2795-2796 of 2018 4 2024 INSC 1034

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 3 of 11

4. According to the Income Tax Department, the services of the

appellants are not liable to be regularized since their eligibility in

terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) and

Ors. (supra) of having rendered continuous service for ten years or

more as on 10.04.2006 was not satisfied by them. In absence of

any sanctioned post available at Gwalior, their services were not

liable to be regularized. The engagement of the appellants was

merely of a casual nature and their services were subsequently

being engaged through a contractor on contractual basis. It is,

thus, the case of the Income Tax Department that the Tribunal and

thereafter, the High Court having rightly denied relief to the

appellants, there was no reason to interfere with that adjudication.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we

have also perused the documents on record. Having considered the

matter in detail, 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.

6. The appellants in the Convenience Compilation filed by them

pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2025 passed in the present

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 4 of 11 proceedings have sought to urge that the appellants are similarly

situated as the appellants in the case of Ravi Verma and Ors.

(supra) decided on 13.03.2018. Therein, the appellants had been

appointed as casual employees with the Income Tax Department

in the year 1993-94 after which they were working continuously.

Their prayer for regularization having been refused by the

Tribunal, the said appellants approached the High Court which,

however, dismissed their writ petition. This Court in the aforesaid

decision was pleased to note that regularization of similarly

situated employees at other places had been undertaken since the

year 2006 and that discriminatory treatment had been meted out

to the said appellants. It, accordingly, directed regularization of

their services from 01.07.2006 alongwith the consequential

benefits.

7. It would be material to note that in the aforesaid appeal, the

appellants were Mr. Ravi Verma, Smt. Munni Devi, Mr. Dharam

Dev Prasad, Mr. Nagendra Thakur & Mr. Sheshnath Choudhary.

The names of the aforesaid appellants alongwith the names of the

present appellants can be found in the list of daily-wage workers

working in the Office of Income Tax, Gwalior as on 31.10.2005.

The said list of daily-wage workers reads as under:

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 5 of 11

LIST OF DAILY WAGES WORKER WORKING CIT CHARGE GWALIOR AS ON 31.10.2005

Sr. Name of the Catgy Post on Date of D.O.B. Edu. Remark No. worker which appointment Qualification working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 S.C. Gen Stgr 19.08. 83 14.03.61 Graduate Shrivastava

2 Ramswaroop OBC Cook 27.12.93 10.07.62 5th (Guest House)

3 Smt. Munni ST Waterman- 14.01.94 31.03.70 Illiterate Devi cum-

Farras

4 Dharam Dev OBC Photocopy 12. 10.94 01 .08.72 5th Machine operator

5 Ravi Verma OBC copier/Ph 24.10.94 20.08.73 Inter otocopy Machine operator 6 Nagendra OBC Waterman- 01.01. 94 08.03. 73 5th Thakur cum-

Farras

7 Shesnath OBC Waterman 24. 1 l .94 01.12.76 High Choudhary -cum- School Farras

8 Pradmod Gen Driver 06.04.95 15.04.68 8th Sharma

9 Manoj Dagore SC Sweeper 01.10.97 08.02.73 5th

10 Pawan SC Sweeper 01.10.97 04.12.74 5th 11 Ramkishan OBC Waterman 01.04.98 06.02.73 8th Sen -turn- Farras 12 Manoj SC Sweeper 01.05.98 02.02.76 Illiterate 13 Gaya Prasad SC Waterman 01.06.98 01.01.73 Inter

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 6 of 11 -cum Farras 14 Ashok kr ten OBC Waterman- 01.02.99 15.04.75 8th cum- Farras 15 Mahendra OBC Gardner 25.02.25 17.04.80 Inter Singh Kushwah 16 Mohan Rana OBC Gardner 25.02.25 26.02.80 8th 17 Mahipal SC chowkidar 25.02.05 30.03.71 ----- Singh 18 Bharat OBC Cook-cum- 25.02.05 05.01.78 8th Narwaria Farras

These names continued to find place in the subsequent lists

dated 11.11.2005 and 31.01.2008. It is, thus, clear that in view of

the decision of this Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra), the

services of five daily-wage workers from the aforesaid list came to

be regularized. Undisputedly, the names of the present appellants

also find place in the said list dated 31.10.2005, 11.11.2005 and

31.01.2008. The present appellants are, therefore, similarly

situated as the appellants in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra).

8. It is also material to note that subsequently in the case of

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.5, this Court

referred to the adjudication in the Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) and

on 03.07.2023 directed regularization of services of the appellants

5 Civil Appeal No.4146 of 2023 Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 7 of 11 therein. This was for the reason that the Income Tax Department

could not have discriminated in the matter of regularizing the

services of similarly situated employees.

On the same analogy, we find that the present appellants also

being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated from the

appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.

9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down

by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the appellants

in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13, 20, 21 and 26,

it has been held as under:

“13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 8 of 11 Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below:

“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-

serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 9 of 11 years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that 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).

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court

dated 26.08.2019 in M.P. No.3460/2018 is set aside. 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.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 10 of 11

12. The applicants in Interim Application No.42233/2020, who

were impleaded as party respondents in view of the order dated

15.03.2021 are also entitled to the aforesaid reliefs.

13. The Civil Appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

..………………………..J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

.…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 13, 2026.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 Page 11 of 11