Pawan Kumar & Orsv.Union of India & Ors

Synopsis

This judgment addresses the regularization of casual workers engaged by the Income Tax Department who had served for extended periods. The appellants, employed as casual workers (sweepers, cooks, etc.) since the 1990s, sought regularization after their services were sought to be outsourced. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court denied relief, holding that they did not satisfy the ten-year continuous service criterion as on 10.04.2006 laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants were identically situated to other daily-wage workers in the same department whose services had been regularized pursuant to earlier Supreme Court orders in Ravi Verma v. Union of India and Raman Kumar v. Union of India. Applying the principle of non-discrimination and the distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments articulated in Jaggio v. Union of India, the Court directed regularization of the appellants' services from 01.07.2006.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 @ SLP(C) No. 29214 of 2019.

INSC Citation: 2026 INSC 156.

Bench Composition: A division bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

Nature of Bench: Division Bench Judgment.

2. Legal Framework and Context

• Primary Constitutional & Statutory Framework:
  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The principle of non-discrimination formed the bedrock of the appellants' claim.
  Service Jurisprudence: The case concerns the rights of casual/daily-wage workers to regularization of their services.

• Key Judicial Precedents:
  Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench): The seminal judgment on regularization, which held that there is no fundamental right to regularization and that appointments made without following constitutional scheme (Articles 14, 16, 309) are impermissible. However, it carved out a one-time exception for employees who had worked for ten years or more as on 10.04.2006 in duly sanctioned posts but whose appointments were "irregular" (not "illegal").
  Ravi Verma v. Union of India, decided on 13.03.2018: A decision of this Court directing regularization of similarly situated casual workers in the Income Tax Department (Gwalior) from 01.07.2006, finding that they had been discriminated against when others elsewhere were regularized since 2006.
  Raman Kumar v. Union of India, decided on 03.07.2023: Following Ravi Verma, this Court directed regularization of similarly situated employees, holding that the Income Tax Department could not discriminate.
  Jaggio v. Union of India, (2023) (cited extensively): Clarified the distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments under Umadevi. Held that continuous, long-term service performing perennial functions can transform an initial ad-hoc engagement into a situation demanding fair regularization. Also observed that outsourcing of work previously done by such workers demonstrates the perennial nature of the work.

• Departmental Circulars:
  Circulars dated 04.07.2011 and 10.01.2012: Issued by the Income Tax Department for outsourcing work, which the appellants contended was an attempt to deprive them of regularization despite the perennial nature of their work.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

The factual matrix reveals the following:

1. Engagement of Appellants: The four appellants were engaged as casual workers in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior:
   Appellant No. 1 (Pawan Kumar): Sweeper from 01.10.1997
   Appellant No. 2 (Manoj): Sweeper from 01.05.1998
   Appellant No. 3 (Manoj Dagore): Sweeper from 01.10.1997
   Appellant No. 4 (Ramswaroop): Cook from 27.12.1993

2. Nature of Engagement: Their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and after interview, they were engaged as daily workers. They claimed to have worked continuously for considerable periods.

3. Outsourcing Policy: In 2011-2012, the Income Tax Department issued circulars to outsource the work being done by the appellants, allegedly to deprive them of regularization.

4. Representations and Litigation: The appellants made representations for regularization. Being unsuccessful, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (OA No. 719 of 2012).

5. Tribunal's Order (13.05.2015): The Tribunal rejected their claim, holding that they did not satisfy the Umadevi criteria of ten years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006.

6. High Court's Judgment (26.08.2019): The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

7. Prior Supreme Court Orders: During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court had decided Ravi Verma (2018) and Raman Kumar (2023), directing regularization of similarly situated daily-wage workers in the same department.

8. Common Employment List: Crucially, a list of daily-wage workers working in the Office of Income Tax, Gwalior as on 31.10.2005 (and continued in subsequent lists of 11.11.2005 and 31.01.2008) contained the names of both the appellants in Ravi Verma (whose services were regularized) and the present appellants. This established that they were all part of the same pool of workers.

4. Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants, who were engaged as casual workers with the Income Tax Department, are entitled to regularization of their services?

2. Whether the denial of regularization to the appellants, when similarly situated workers in the same department (as evidenced by the common employment list) had been granted regularization pursuant to the judgments in Ravi Verma (supra) and Raman Kumar (supra), amounts to invidious discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the engagement of the appellants can be termed "irregular" rather than "illegal" within the framework of Umadevi (supra), thereby bringing them within the one-time exception carved out therein?

4. Whether the subsequent outsourcing of the work performed by the appellants demonstrates the perennial nature of the work, supporting their claim for regularization?

5. Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court's reasoning and conclusion were founded on the following principles:

• Principle of Non-Discrimination: Where a class of persons is identically situated, they cannot be treated differently. The appellants were part of the same list of daily-wage workers as those in Ravi Verma. Five workers from that list had already been regularized by this Court's order. To deny the same benefit to the present appellants would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

• Binding Nature of Precedent: Once this Court in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar had directed regularization of similarly situated employees of the same department, the Income Tax Department could not discriminate against other identically placed workers. The principle of stare decisis required that the same relief be extended.

• Distinction Between Irregular and Illegal Appointments (from Jaggio): The Court, relying on Jaggio, reiterated that Umadevi itself distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments. Where appointments are not illegal (i.e., not made in complete disregard of constitutional requirements) but merely irregular (lacking some procedural formalities), and where employees have served continuously for long periods performing essential functions, a case for regularization arises. The subsequent outsourcing of the work demonstrated that the functions were perennial and fundamental, not temporary or occasional.

• Substance Over Form: Courts must look beyond the initial label of engagement and consider the realities: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of mala fide or illegality in the appointments. The belated introduction of an outsourcing policy cannot defeat legitimate claims.

• One-Time Measure Under Umadevi: The Constitution Bench in Umadevi itself contemplated a one-time measure for regularization of those in irregular appointments who had served for ten years or more. The Court found that the appellants fell within this equitable exception.

6. Analysis of the Legal Framework Established

This judgment, while fact-specific, reinforces and clarifies several important principles in service jurisprudence:

• Principle of Parity as an Enforcement Tool: The judgment establishes that once a particular set of employees in a department has been granted regularization by judicial order, all other identically situated employees are entitled to the same benefit. This prevents the executive from selectively implementing court orders and perpetuating discrimination.

• Evidentiary Value of Common Employment Records: The existence of a common employment list (dated 31.10.2005, 11.11.2005, 31.01.2008) was treated as conclusive proof that the appellants were part of the same pool as the already-regularized workers. This evidentiary approach provides a clear template for future cases.

• Reaffirmation of Jaggio Principles: The Court's extensive quotation from Jaggio (paras 13, 20, 21, 26) serves to embed those principles more firmly into the jurisprudence on regularization. In particular:
  Outsourcing of work previously done by casual workers demonstrates the perennial nature of the work.
  Continuous, long-term service can transform an initial ad-hoc engagement into a scenario demanding fair regularization.
  The Umadevi judgment's distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" must not be overlooked or weaponized against employees.

• Cut-off Date for Regularization: The Court directed regularization from 01.07.2006, the same date as in Ravi Verma, ensuring complete parity and avoiding any differential treatment in the commencement of benefits.

7. Court's Examination and Conceptual Application

The Supreme Court's analysis proceeded methodically:

• Comparison of Parties: The Court first compared the appellants in the present case with those in Ravi Verma. It noted that both sets of appellants were:
  Casual/daily-wage workers in the Office of Income Tax, Gwalior.
  Their names appeared in the same official list of daily-wage workers dated 31.10.2005 (and subsequent lists).
  They had been engaged around the same time period (1993-1998).
  They performed similar types of work (sweeper, cook, waterman, etc.).

• Examination of Prior Judgments: The Court analyzed the orders in Ravi Verma (13.03.2018) and Raman Kumar (03.07.2023), noting that this Court had already directed regularization of identically situated employees. The rationale in those cases—that the Income Tax Department could not discriminate—applied with full force to the present appellants.

• Application of Jaggio Principles: The Court quoted extensively from Jaggio (paras 13, 20, 21, 26) to reinforce the legal framework. Key concepts applied:
  The perennial nature of the work (evidenced by the fact that the same work was sought to be outsourced after the appellants' engagement).
  The distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments.
  The need to look beyond labels to the realities of continuous, long-term service.
  The observation that Umadevi is often misapplied to deny legitimate claims.

• Rejection of Tribunal's Approach: The Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief by mechanically applying the ten-year cut-off from Umadevi without considering:
  The subsequent judgments in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar directly on point.
  The fact that the appellants were identically situated to those already regularized.
  The principles of Jaggio regarding irregular appointments.

• Direction for Regularization: Having found discrimination and applied the correct legal principles, the Court directed regularization from 01.07.2006 (the same date as in Ravi Verma) with benefits to be released within three months.

• Extension to Impleaded Applicants: The Court also extended the relief to applicants in I.A. No. 42233/2020 who had been impleaded as party respondents, ensuring complete justice.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a significant victory for long-serving casual workers and a robust application of the principle of non-discrimination. Its primary strength lies in its practical and equitable approach—refusing to allow technicalities to defeat the legitimate claims of workers who have served for decades.

The Court's reliance on the common employment list is particularly powerful. By demonstrating that the appellants were part of the exact same pool as those already regularized, the Court effectively eliminated any argument that the appellants were differently situated. This evidentiary approach provides a clear roadmap for future litigation by similarly placed workers.

The extensive quotation from Jaggio serves to rehabilitate the proper understanding of Umadevi. Too often, Umadevi is cited as an absolute bar to regularization, ignoring its own recognition that the one-time exception was intended for cases like the present. The Court's reminder that Umadevi distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments is crucial—it prevents the judgment from being weaponized against those who entered service through a process (employment exchange sponsorship, interview) that, while perhaps not fully compliant with all formalities, was not a backdoor entry.

The observation that outsourcing of work previously done by casual workers demonstrates the perennial nature of the work is also significant. It prevents departments from circumventing regularization claims by simply contracting out the same work, and then arguing that the work was never regular in nature.

However, the judgment could have benefited from a more detailed analysis of whether the appellants actually satisfied the ten-year criterion as on 10.04.2006. The dates of engagement (1993-1998) suggest they would have crossed ten years by 2006, but the Court did not explicitly calculate this. Instead, it relied on the principle of parity with Ravi Verma, which may have assumed satisfaction of that criterion. A clearer finding on this point would have strengthened the judgment.

The direction to release benefits within three months is commendable, but the practical challenges of computing arrears for nearly two decades may require active monitoring. The Court's confidence that the department will comply is optimistic, given the history of litigation.

Final Outcome and Directions:

1. Appeal Allowed: The judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 was set aside.

2. Regularization Directed: The services of the appellants were ordered to be regularized from 01.07.2006, on the same terms as made applicable in Ravi Verma v. Union of India and Raman Kumar v. Union of India.

3. Time Frame for Benefits: All benefits were directed to be released in favour of the appellants within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

4. Extension to Impleaded Applicants: The applicants in Interim Application No. 42233/2020, who had been impleaded as party respondents, were also held entitled to the same reliefs.

5. No Order as to Costs: Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

(MCQs)

1. Which Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court laid down the framework for regularization of irregular appointments, carving out a one-time exception for employees who had completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006?
a) State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
b) Jaggio v. Union of India
c) Ravi Verma v. Union of India
d) Raman Kumar v. Union of India

2. From which date did the Supreme Court direct regularization of the appellants' services, to ensure parity with earlier cases?
a) 10.04.2006
b) 01.07.2006
c) 13.03.2018
d) 03.07.2023

3. According to the judgment, what critical test did the Court apply to determine whether the appellants were entitled to the same relief as granted in Ravi Verma?
a) The ten-year continuous service test
b) The distinction between irregular and illegal appointments
c) The principle of parity, as the appellants' names appeared in the same employment list as the already-regularized workers
d) The existence of sanctioned posts

4. Which subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court was extensively quoted to reinforce the distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments and the principle that continuous service performing perennial functions can justify regularization?
a) Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
b) Jaggio v. Union of India
c) Ravi Verma v. Union of India
d) Raman Kumar v. Union of India