Suresh Kumar Vs Union of India

Petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) by filing Original Application No.331/00086/2016, seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider his case for grant of temporary status as per policy of the Central Government. The original application was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.06.2019, both on merits as well as on limitation. Thus feeling aggrieved, he has approached this Court challenging the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dismissal of Original Application on the ground of delay is unsustainable, as learned Tribunal had

¶12

1

¶13

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶14

condoned delay in filing the original application, vide order dated 21.05.2018. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to copy of order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), which is at Page 247 of the paper book.

¶15

Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the respondent do not dispute this submission and in fact he concedes that delay in filing original application, if any, was condoned by the said order.

¶16

The reason assigned by learned Tribunal for dismissing petitioner’s claim on merit can be culled out from paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, which is extracted below:-

¶17

“24. Once these points are accepted, it is clear that the working days actually put in by the applicant in each year right from 1987 till the date of filing of OA/Writ Petition in 2017 do not amount to 240 days in any single year. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of temporary status under the scheme.”

¶18

5. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

¶19

Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) framed a scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary

¶20

2

¶21

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶22

Status and Regularisation) Scheme, which is on record at page 93 of the writ petition. The scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Clause 4 of the said scheme provides for grant of temporary status and Clause 4 (i) lays down the eligibility condition, which is extracted below:-

¶23

“4(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged as Mali on muster roll basis in Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, Dehradun, on 17.07.1987, and he is thereafter serving continuously in the said Institute, thus the stand taken by respondents before the Tribunal that petitioner had not served for 240 days in one year, is not correct.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the chart prepared by Assistant Administrative Officer, Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, Dehradun, which is on record at page 168 of the writ petition, which indicates that petitioner had worked for 211 days in the year 1991, 200 days in the year 1992, 216 days in the year 1993 and 228 days in the year 1994. Learned counsel points out from the chart that petitioner was discharging duties in the Hostel

¶26

3

¶27

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶28

and Guest House, during the aforesaid period, and submits that work was perennial in nature, as such petitioner was wrongly denied benefit of temporary status.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the information contained in the said chart is treated as correct, then also petitioner is eligible for grant of temporary status as the requirement of the scheme is that one should have rendered 240 days of continuous service in at least one year, and that one year is not necessarily the period commencing from 1^st January and ending on 31^st December in a year as understood by learned Tribunal but it means the period of 12 calendar months, just preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, regarding the number of days a casual labourer has served in the Institute. He further submits that Sundays and other holidays, including national holidays, have to be included while calculating the period of 240 days, which aspect, however, was over-looked by learned Tribunal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that two persons, who were appointed much after appointment of the petitioner in the Institute were earlier granted temporary status and thereafter they were regularized in service in the year 2005; therefore petitioner was also entitled to similar treatment, which however was denied to him.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal, which

¶32

4

¶33

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶34

is based on wrong premise, is thus unsustainable. He further submits that learned Tribunal should have called upon the respondents to provide monthwise breakup of services rendered by the petitioner, which would have made the position clear that he was eligible for grant of temporary status.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others and connected” decided on 20.12.2024. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

¶36

“ 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶37

Misuse of "Temporary" Labels :

¶38

Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

¶39

Arbitrary Termination :

¶40

Temporary are frequently dismissed employees without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

¶41

5

¶42

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶43

Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶44

Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶45

Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits :

¶46

Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

¶47

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 longserving 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 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

¶48

6

¶49

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶50

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.

¶51

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

¶52

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, learned Tribunal condoned the delay in filing original application vide order dated 21.05.2018, therefore, the same could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. As regards dismissal of original application on merits, learned Tribunal appears to have over-looked the language of Clause 4 (i) of the applicable scheme. The scheme nowhere provides that 240 days’ of service is needed in a single year and all that is required is 240 days service in 12 calendar months, just preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made. Thus, even though petitioner’s

¶53

7

¶54

2025:UHC:1818-DB

¶55

service falls short of 240 days in the year 1994, however, if 240 days service is complete, over a period of 12 calendar months spread over between 1993 and 1994, then also petitioner was eligible for grant of temporary status.

¶56

The aforesaid aspect appears to have been over-looked by learned Tribunal. Petitioner is a low paid casual employee, and the scheme has been framed for the benefit of such employees. Learned Tribunal has dismissed his original application on untenable grounds. Thus interference with the impugned judgment would be warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.06.2019 passed by learned Tribunal is set aside. Respondent no.2/Director, Central Soil and Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of temporary status as per the scheme framed by Central Government, in the year 1993. If the Director finds that petitioner is entitled for grant of temporary status, then such status shall be given to him from due date, with consequential benefits, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶57

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

¶58

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

¶59

Dt:17^th March, 2025 NR/

¶60

8

Suresh Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandan Singh Nagniyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhole Shankar Vs Union of India

Managing Director Uttarakhand Vs Brijmohan

Rajesh Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Smt. Mohini Devi

Dr. Pallavi Patni Vs State of Uttarakhand