# UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC

- **Citation:** [2019] 2 S.C.R. 317
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-01-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.175-176 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-ors-v-central-administrative-tribunal-ors-etc-etc-33477
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Service Law - Regularization - Group 'D' workers engaged
on casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrative
control of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularized
despite long years of service - Central Administrative Tribunal
mandated preparation of seniority list and for working out the
possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers - Order
affirmed by the High Court - Casual workmen moved Tribunal stating
that despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observe
seniority, persons below in seniority regularized - Tribunal directed
the authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casual
workers as accorded to their juniors - Challenged by Union of
India - High Court confirmed the order, also directing that even if
posts in the Institute are not available, casual workers who claimed
regularization be considered in other places where Group 'D' posts
are available - Propriety of - Held: Direction to consider the casual
workers for regularization in other establishments was not justified
- Original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain mandamus
for regularization - Order mandated that seniority list should be
maintained by the Union of India and that the possibility of
regularizing the casual workmen at the Institute should be considered
against existing and future vacancies in Group 'D' posts - Acting
on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High
Court, Union of India proceeded to formulate seniority list and, in
fact, regularized at least four individuals - Action of selecting
juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who
had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and
arbitrary - Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring
seniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded -
Arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writ
large - Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 317
 317
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational
principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to
regularize the workmen concerned - Such persons who are
available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at
present, be considered in accordance with law - Indian Audit and
Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011.
Group 'D' workers, engaged on casual basis at the Regional
Training Institute, claimed before the Central Administrative
Tribunal that despite long years of service they were not
regularized. The Tribunal inter alia issued directions for working
out the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers.
The order was affirmed by the High Court. Casual workmen
moved the Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions of
the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority were
regularized. The Tribunal directed the authorities to accord the
benefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded to
their juniors. High Court while confirming the order of the
Tribunal directed that even if posts in the Institute are not
available, the casual workers who claimed regularization be
considered in other places where Group 'D' posts are available.
Hence the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the original order passed
by the Tribunal did not contain a mandamus for regularization.
The order mandated that a seniority list should be maintained by
the Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casual
workmen at the Regional Training Institute should be considered
against existing and future vacancies in Group 'D' posts. Acting
on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed
by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to formulate a
seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.
The judg

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.175-176 of 2019)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law - Regularization - Group 'D' workers engaged
on casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrative
control of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularized
despite long years of service - Central Administrative Tribunal
mandated preparation of seniority list and for working out the
possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers - Order
affirmed by the High Court - Casual workmen moved Tribunal stating
that despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observe
seniority, persons below in seniority regularized - Tribunal directed
the authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casual
workers as accorded to their juniors - Challenged by Union of
India - High Court confirmed the order, also directing that even if
posts in the Institute are not available, casual workers who claimed
regularization be considered in other places where Group 'D' posts
are available - Propriety of - Held: Direction to consider the casual
workers for regularization in other establishments was not justified
- Original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain mandamus
for regularization - Order mandated that seniority list should be
maintained by the Union of India and that the possibility of
regularizing the casual workmen at the Institute should be considered
against existing and future vacancies in Group 'D' posts - Acting
on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High
Court, Union of India proceeded to formulate seniority list and, in
fact, regularized at least four individuals - Action of selecting
juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who
had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and
arbitrary - Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring
seniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded -
Arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writ
large - Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 317
 317
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational
principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to
regularize the workmen concerned - Such persons who are
available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at
present, be considered in accordance with law - Indian Audit and
Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011.
Group 'D' workers, engaged on casual basis at the Regional
Training Institute, claimed before the Central Administrative
Tribunal that despite long years of service they were not
regularized. The Tribunal inter alia issued directions for working
out the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers.
The order was affirmed by the High Court. Casual workmen
moved the Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions of
the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority were
regularized. The Tribunal directed the authorities to accord the
benefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded to
their juniors. High Court while confirming the order of the
Tribunal directed that even if posts in the Institute are not
available, the casual workers who claimed regularization be
considered in other places where Group 'D' posts are available.
Hence the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the original order passed
by the Tribunal did not contain a mandamus for regularization.
The order mandated that a seniority list should be maintained by
the Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casual
workmen at the Regional Training Institute should be considered
against existing and future vacancies in Group 'D' posts. Acting
on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed
by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to formulate a
seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.
The judgment of the High Court attained finality. The Tribunal
justifiably held that the action of selecting juniors for
regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who had put in
longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary. This
direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in
its impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
authorities at the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case.
Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring seniors
shows that a favoured few have been rewarded. This is arbitrary.
[Para 19][326-B-D]
1.2 The judgment of this Court in Uma Devi does not
preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization after
the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some
employees, provided that the said employees have completed
the years of service as mandated by Uma Devi. The ruling casts
an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair
opportunity of regularization to all such employees entitled
according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that the
benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent
regularization of employees who have completed the requisite
period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the
one-time exercise. [Para 23] [328-G; 329-A-B]
1.3 The High Court directed the Union of India to absorb
the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question,
then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction
cannot be sustained. Equally, the authorities cannot be heard to
throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no
vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons
in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal entered
a finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the
record. Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,
which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must
follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in
proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned. Accordingly,
it is directed that the case for regularization shall be considered
strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the
directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by
the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for
regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall
be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal had denied
back-wages but ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances.
While affirming that direction, it is also directed that persons
who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis.
If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the concerned
workmen, the appellants shall do so. [Para 26] [329-G-H;
330-A-E]
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4
SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 - followed.
State of Karnataka v. M L Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
[2010] 9 SCR 543 ; Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238 - relied on.
Malathi Das v. Suresh (2014) 13 SCC 249 :
[2014] 3 SCR 637 ; Prem Ram v. Managing Director
Uttarakhand
Pey
Jal
and
Nirman
Nigam
Dehradun (2015) 11 SCC 255 : [2015] 7 SCR 192
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953
followed
Para 14
[2014] 3 SCR 637
referred to
Para 15
[2015] 7 SCR 192
referred to
Para 15
[2010] 9 SCR 543
relied on
Para 21
(2018) 8 SCC 238
relied on
Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 175176 of 2019.
 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ - A Nos. 35395 & 35398
of 2013.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ms. V.D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., Sachin
Sharma, P.V. Yogeshwaran, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Grover,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs.for the Appellants.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Gaurav Agarwal, Raj Singh Rana, Advs.
for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The Union
of India has moved these proceedings aggrieved by a judgment of a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19 July, 2013.
2. The issue pertains to a direction for regularizing the services of
eighteen respondents in Group 'D' posts at the Regional Training Institute
at Allahabad1. The organization falls under the administrative control of
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
3. The first round of proceedings was initiated on behalf of persons
who had been engaged as Group 'D' workers on a casual basis at the
Institute. The grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal was
that since 1986, the Institute had engaged casual workers and, despite
long years of service, they had not been regularized. By the time the
Tribunal delivered its judgment on 6 January, 2006, many of them had
put in well over twelve years of service. While disposing of the Original
Application2, the Tribunal issued directions (i)mandating the preparation
of a seniority list in accordance with the number of days worked; and
(ii) for working out the possibility of regularizing the services of these
casual workers against vacant Group 'D' posts then existing or as may
be created in the near future.
4. The Tribunal directed that in the meanwhile the workers shall
be accommodated in batches of twenty in accordance with the exigencies
of work in the Institute. The directions contained in the judgment of the
Tribunal are extracted below:
"6...The possible solution, therefore, would be that the respondents
carry out an exercise of preparing a seniority list in the descending
order of the number of days these casual labourers worked as on
01.04.2005 (irrespective of whether the casual labourers were on
duty on this day) and on the basis of their seniority, they shall
work out the possibility of regularizing the services of such casual
labourers against any vacant post of Group D post or any new
post created in the near future. In so far as day to day work is
concerned, the respondents shall accommodate the first 20 and in
case of their unavailability for any span of time, according to the
seniority they may engage other casual labourers on need basis.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
1'The Institute
2 OA No 1191 of 2004
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
Those who are tailenders, may be suitably informed of their bleak
prospects of being engaged in view of the fact that there are
adequate number of casual labourers to be engaged for day to
day work who are senior to such persons. Out of the seniors as
on date, if any of them are not being engaged, the respondents
shall accommodate them as well."
5. The judgment of the Tribunal was assailed before and considered
by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in writ proceedings3
initiated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The High Court
by its judgment dated 23 March 2006 observed that "it was not in dispute"
that there was no positive direction as such for regularization of the
service of the casual workmen and that there was only a direction for
considering the possibility of regularization. Hence, while disposing of
the petition, the High Court observed thus:
"It is not disputed by ... learned counsel for the respondents that
the Tribunal had not issued any positive direction for regularization
of service of such casual labourers but had merely observed that
the petitioners should consider the possibility of regularizing the
services against any vacant group 'D' post or any new post that
was likely to be created in near future. In this view of the matter,
the contention advanced by Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel
for the petitioners that a positive direction for regularization could
not have been issued by the Tribunal, is misconceived.
We are also of the considered opinion that the direction by the
Tribunal to accommodate the first 20 casual labourers from the
list prepared on the basis of the seniority is also in consonance
with the provisions of Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central)
Rules, 1957 and as such it calls for no interference from this
Court."
6. After the judgment of the High Court, the casual workmen
moved the Tribunal in another Original Application in 20084. The specific
grievance with which the application was moved was that despite the
specific directions contained in the order of the Tribunal to observe
seniority, persons who had been regularized and given permanent status
were below the applicants in the order of seniority. Specific examples
were furnished of the manner in which the seniority list was breached.
3 Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 15825 of 2006
4 OA No 1052 of 2008
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
7. The Union of India responded to the averments contained in
the Original Application and sought to contend that it had engaged such
of the casual workers who had reported for work.
8. The Tribunal by its decision dated 2 April, 2013 held that in
pursuance of its earlier order, which was confirmed by the Allahabad
High Court, the Union of India was obliged to prepare a seniority list
based on the number of days worked and to consider the possibility of
regularization against existing or future vacancies. The Tribunal observed
that despite its earlier directions, the authorities at the Institute had
proceeded to regularize persons junior to them and with a lesser length
of service.
9. In the meantime, in 2011, new recruitment rules titled "the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department Multi- Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules,
2011"5 came into force in pursuance of which advertisements were issued
for filling up several posts of Multi-Tasking Staff.
10. The Tribunal observed that though the applicants before it had
admittedly worked for a longer period of time than the private respondents
(Respondents 6 to 9) who had been regularized, the benefit of
regularization had not been granted to seniors in the seniority list. The
Tribunal has rejected the defence that those who are not regularized,
though senior, had not reported for work. In this view of the matter, the
Tribunal noted that the Union of India had committed a breach of its
assurance furnished in the course of earlier contempt proceedings that
those who would report for duty would be accepted on work. Moreover,
while failing to regularize persons who had put in more than 12 years of
service as casual workers, the benefit of regularization had been granted
to juniors despite the earlier orders which had attained finality. The
Tribunal accordingly issued the following directions:
"21. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the
respondents shall accord the same benefit of regularisation to the
applicants as has been admittedly accorded to their juniors
Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. While according the said benefit to the
applicants, the respondents would follow the order of seniority in
the seniority list admittedly prepared in pursuance to the orders of
this Tribunal in OA No.1191 of 2004 as upheld by the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No.15825/06. The said
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
5'Multi-Tasking Rules
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
benefit shall be accorded to the applicants from the same date as
that of their admitted juniors. The said regularisation would be
accorded in the available vacancies in various categories like
unreserved, SC, ST and OBC by maintaining the category of the
respective applicants and subject to availability of vacancies in
the respective categories. However, the applicants will not be
entitled to any back wages for the period they have not actually
worked but they will be entitled to notional fixation of pay and
allowances from the date of joining of their admitted juniors and
on that basis actual pay and allowances from their actual date of
joining. The applicants will also be entitled to all other consequential
benefits."
11. It was the above direction of the Tribunal which the Union of
India questioned in the proceedings before the High Court and which
culminated in the impugned order. The High Court has, while confirming
the order of the Tribunal, held that in regularizing the juniors of the private
respondents against vacant Group 'D' posts, the appellants have frustrated
the orders passed by the Court in the earlier proceedings. Hence, it has
been directed that even if posts in the Institute are not available, the
applicants who claimed regularization could be considered in other places
where Group 'D' posts are available.
12. At the outset, Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General has urged that the Division Bench was not justified in issuing a
direction for considering the case for regularization in other places where
Group 'D' posts are available. The learned ASG urges that no posts are
available at the Institute for regularization. The Multi-Tasking Rules
have come into force in 2011 and at the highest, the workmen may be
allowed an age relaxation if any posts are freshly advertised.
13. We find merit in the contention that the direction to consider
the casual workers for regularization in other establishments was not
justified. The issue essentially is whether regularization in the
establishment of the Regional Training Institute was required to be carried
out, consistent with the earlier directions which had attained finality.
14. We must, at the outset, note that the earlier decision of the
Tribunal was rendered on 6 January, 2006 while the decision of the High
Court was rendered on 23 March, 2006. The judgment of the Constitution
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
(3)6 was delivered on 10 April, 2006.
15. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the
respondents by Ms. Preetika Dwivedi is that the applicability of Uma
Devi has been considered in two decisions of this Court in Malathi Das
v. Suresh7 and in Prem Ram v. Managing Director Uttarakhand
Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam Dehradun8.
16. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of the judgment
of this Court in Uma Devi, the Union of India was required to adhere to
a seniority list. There was a clear breach on the part of the Union of
India in doing so inasmuch as juniors to those who were senior in the
seniority list were admittedly regularized. Ms Dwivedi has ably assisted
this Court in pursuing her client's cause for justice.
17. From the record before this Court, it has emerged that as a
matter of fact, four persons were regularized after the judgment of the
High Court in the earlier round of proceedings. The Tribunal has entered
a finding of fact that the persons who were regularized were junior to
those who ranked above them in the seniority list. The applicability of
Uma Devi to a situation such as present, has been dealt with in several
judgments of this Court, including the decisions in Malathi Das and
Prem Ram, referred to earlier.
18. In Malathi Das, this Court noted that, as a matter of fact, the
authorities had granted regularization to various other individuals who
were similarly placed. Among them were persons who were regularized
even after the decision in Uma Devi. Similarly, in Prem Ram, this
Court observed that persons who were appointed on a date subsequent
to the appellant were regularized. A distinction was sought to be made in
the case of the appellant on the specious plea that they were brought on
to a work-charge establishment. This Court observed that what was
important was that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the
year 1988 and, by the time the decision in Uma Devi was rendered, he
had completed more than ten years of service. The Government had
formulated Rules for regularization. This Court noted that neither the
State Government nor the Jal Nigam had resented the idea of regularizing
those who had served for over a decade. In this background, the Court
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
6(2006) 4 SCC 1
7(2014) 13 SCC 249
 8(2015) 11 SCC 255
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
came to the conclusion that there was no impediment in directing
regularization of the services of the appellant and for the release of
retiral dues on that basis.
19. In the present case, the original order passed by the Tribunal
did not contain a mandamus for regularization. The order mandated that
a seniority list should be maintained by the Union of India and that the
possibility of regularizing the casual workmen at the Regional Training
Institute should be considered against existing and future vacancies in
Group 'D' posts. Acting on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal,
which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to
formulate a seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.
The judgment of the High Court attained finality. Even before the decision
in Uma Devi, as the Tribunal noted, the workmen had put in over twelve
years of service. The Tribunal, in our view, justifiably held that the action
of selecting juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons
who had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary.
This direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in its
impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at
the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case. Picking up individuals
for regularization, while ignoring seniors shows that a favoured few have
been rewarded. This is arbitrary.
20. Following the logic of the two decisions of this Court which
have been noted earlier, we are of the view that the decision in Uma
Devi cannot be used as a charter to discriminate between similarly placed
employees, once the Union of India in fact takes a decision to regularize
the individuals borne on a seniority list. This decision, as we have already
noted earlier, was taken in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal
and of the High Court both of which were rendered before the decision
in Uma Devi.
21. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi. Justice P K
Balasubramanyan, speaking for the Court, held thus:
"53...In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments
and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but
not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but
there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
22. The directions issued in Uma Devi have been considered by
subsequent benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M L
Kesari9, a two-judge bench of this Court held that the "one-time
measure" prescribed in Uma Devi must be considered as concluded
only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Uma
Devi, had been considered. Justice R V Raveendran, who wrote the
opinion of the Court, held:
"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper
perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in
Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should
undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual,
daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more
than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and
subject them to a process verification as to whether they are
working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification
for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi,
cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still
pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and
instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation
process. On the other hand, some government departments or
instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several
employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases
were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such
circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered
in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their
right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the
one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases,
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
9(2010) 9 SCC 247
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi
has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all dailywage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of
continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If
any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of
para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some
employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of
Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their
cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The
one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the
employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of
para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is
two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than
ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim
orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi
was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their
long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/
instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing
persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and
then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have
served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional
or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment.
The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked
for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in
Umadevi] without the protection of any interim order of any court
or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification,
are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the
employer has not undertaken such exercise of
regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi
or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a
limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to
be considered for regularisation in terms of the above
directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure."
 (Emphasis supplied)
23. The judgement of this Court in Uma Devi does not preclude
the claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise has
been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Uma
Devi. The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities
to grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees which
are entitled according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that
the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularization
of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to
be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.
24. The decisions of this Court in Uma Devi and ML Kesari
were considered by a two-judge bench of this Court in Narendra Kumar
Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand10. Justice Madan Lokur construed the
decision in Uma Devi in the following terms:
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was
therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal
appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on
those irregularly appointed in the past..."
25. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a strict and
literal interpretation was given to the decision in Uma Devi, no employee
from the State of Jharkhand appointed on an irregular basis could ever
be regularized as the State was formed on 15 November 2000 and the
cut-off date had been fixed as 10 April 2006. The intent of the Court
was to grant similarly-placed employees who had put the requisite years
of service as mandated by Uma Devi, the benefit of regularization. The
Court thus held that the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit
Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran
Niyamawali, 2015 ("the Regularsation Rules") must be interpreted in a
pragmatic manner and employees of the State who had completed 10
years of service on the date of promulgation of the rules, ought to be
regularized. In doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the State
of Jharkhand who had completed the same years of service as employees
from other States, are granted parity in terms of regularization. The
spirit of non-discrimination and equity runs through the decisions in Uma
Devi, ML Kesari and Narendra Kumar Tiwari.
26. In this background, the issue which now arises before this
Court is in regard to the effective direction which would govern the
present case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorb
the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
10 (2018) 8 SCC 238
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we have
already noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion, the authorities
cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there
are no vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons
in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal has entered a
finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record.
Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement the
decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the
Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the
seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned.
Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularization shall be considered
strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions
which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and
such of the persons, who are available for regularization on the basis of
vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with
law. The Tribunal has denied back-wages but has ordered a notional
fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we also
direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be
entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that
basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months
from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary to
grant age relaxation to the concerned workmen, the appellants shall do
so.
27. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey
 Appeals disposed of.