The Supreme Court of India approved appeals of long-serving casual workers from the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, ordering regularization after finding parity with similarly placed daily-wage employees. J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside decision.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has approved the civil appeals of employees who served as casual workers in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, for an extended period. The Court ordered their regularization, noting that they were similarly situated to other daily-wage workers in the Department, whose employment had been regularized following previous rulings. The appellants had challenged the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in their appeal.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated,
“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.”
Advocate Prashant Shukla represented the appellants, while ASG Archana Pathak Dave represented the respondents.
Factual Background
The appellants had registered with the Employment Exchange and claimed to have worked as casual employees in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, for a significant duration. They expected to be granted temporary status, followed by regularization of their services, and initially made representations to the Income Tax Department.
When these requests were denied, the appellants filed an Original Application with the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking consideration for regularization.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellants’ services could not be regularized because they did not meet the required criteria of ten years of regular service as of April 10, 2006, per the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (2006).
Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which declined to intervene and dismissed their writ petition. Not content with that judgment, the appellants escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Observations of court:
The Bench noted that the appellants, in the Convenience Compilation they provided following the order dated September 2, 2025, argued that they were similarly situated to the appellants in Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2018). In that case, the appellants were appointed as casual employees in the Income Tax Department in 1993-94 and had worked continuously since then.
The Supreme Court in that ruling recognized that regularization of similarly situated employees had been occurring since 2006 and identified the discriminatory treatment faced by the appellants. Consequently, it directed their regularization from July 1, 2006, along with applicable benefits.
The Bench concluded that the current appellants were, indeed, in a similar position to those in Ravi Verma and Ors. Additionally, the law established in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2024) supported their request for regularization.
As a result, the civil appeals were allowed, and the Bench set aside the High Court’s judgment.
Directing that the applicable benefits be granted to the appellants within three months, the Bench ordered
“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.,”
Cause Title: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 156)
Read Attachment: