Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Appellants, directing their regularization in the Income Tax Department. The appellants had been working as Sweepers and a Cook since the 1990s and sought regularization after their representations were rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court denied relief based on the Umadevi (3) judgment, which requires ten years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 for regularization. However, the Supreme Court found that similarly situated workers, including those in the Ravi Verma case, had been regularized earlier, leading to discriminatory treatment. The Court held that the appellants' engagement was irregular and the work was perennial, as evidenced by outsourcing attempts. It directed regularization from 01.07.2006 with all consequential benefits, setting aside the lower courts' decisions.
Headnote
The Supreme Court, allowed the appeal filed by Appellants. against Union of India & Ors. -- The appellants, casual workers engaged as Sweepers and a Cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, sought regularization of their services -- They had been working since 1993-1998 and were registered with the Employment Exchange -- The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court denied relief, citing failure to meet the ten-year service criterion as on 10.04.2006 under Umadevi (3) -- The Supreme Court held that the appellants were similarly situated to workers in Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., whose services were regularized by the Court -- The Court found discriminatory treatment as similarly placed employees had been regularized since 2006 -- It directed regularization of the appellants' services from 01.07.2006 with consequential benefits, overriding the strict application of Umadevi (3) criteria in light of equity and precedent -- The judgment emphasizes that engagement was irregular, not illegal, and work was perennial, as indicated by outsourcing attempts
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the appellants, who were casual workers in the Income Tax Department, were entitled to regularization of their services despite not meeting the ten-year service criterion as per Umadevi (3) judgment, given that similarly situated workers had been regularized earlier
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directed regularization of the appellants' services from 01.07.2006 with consequential benefits, and set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court
Law Points
- Regularization of services
- Constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination
- Interpretation of Secretary
- State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.
- Similarity in factual circumstances
- Perennial nature of work
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 34
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019)
J. K. MAHESHWARI J. , ATUL S. CHANDURKAR J.
Not specified in judgment
Union of India & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal arising from Special Leave Petition challenging denial of regularization of services by Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought regularization of their services as casual workers in the Income Tax Department
Filing Reason
Appellants' representations for regularization were rejected, and lower courts denied relief based on Umadevi (3) criteria
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No.719 of 2012 on 13.05.2015, High Court dismissed writ petition on 26.08.2019, both citing failure to meet ten-year service criterion under Umadevi (3)
Issues
Whether the appellants are entitled to regularization of their services despite not fulfilling the ten-year service criterion as per Umadevi (3) judgment
Whether the appellants are similarly situated to workers whose services were regularized in Ravi Verma case, warranting similar treatment to avoid discrimination
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued they were similarly situated to workers in Ravi Verma case, whose services were regularized, and engagement was irregular, not illegal
Respondents contended appellants did not meet Umadevi (3) criteria, no sanctioned posts available, and engagement was casual, later outsourced
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that when similarly situated employees have been regularized, denying regularization to others constitutes discriminatory treatment violating constitutional principles of equality -- The strict criteria of Umadevi (3) may be relaxed in cases of equity and precedent to prevent injustice -- Irregular engagement in perennial work warrants regularization to avoid arbitrariness
Judgment Excerpts
Held 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 -- Para 5
Held 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 -- Para 6
Procedural History
Appellants made representations to Income Tax Department for regularization -- Filed Original Application No.719 of 2012 before Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissed on 13.05.2015 -- Filed writ petition in High Court, dismissed on 26.08.2019 -- Filed Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court, converted to Civil Appeal, allowed on 2026-01-01
