In a significant judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi Bench, has directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to regularize the services of a casual labourer with temporary status, recognizing his long-standing service and rejecting the government’s argument based on a “phasing out” clause.

Background

The applicant, Raj Kumar, served initially in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission) as a casual labourer with temporary status. Following the winding up of MRTP and the creation of the CCI, his services were transferred in 2010 to the CCI along with 34 other similarly placed employees.

Despite this transition, his request for regularization was denied via an Office Order dated 02.07.2018, prompting the applicant to file the present OA.

Key Issues Raised

• Whether the applicant was eligible for regularization post his transfer to CCI.
• Whether similarly placed employees had been regularized, and if so, whether denial in the applicant’s case amounted to discrimination.
• Interpretation of the Office Order dated 29.03.2010 regarding “phasing out” of posts.

CAT’s Findings

The Tribunal made several important observations:

1. “Phasing Out” Clause Misinterpreted: The Tribunal clarified that the “phasing out” mentioned in the 2010 Office Order referred to the institutional winding up of MRTP, not the abolition of individual posts. Thus, available vacancies could not be ignored under the garb of phasing out.
2. Equity and Fairness: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India (2024), the Tribunal emphasized that long-term service and duties akin to regular employees demand equitable recognition, even if initial appointments were not regular.
3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16: The denial of regularization solely on the basis of classification (temporary vs. permanent) without considering the nature and continuity of service was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. Discrimination Among Equals: The authorities failed to explain the status of regularization of two similarly placed individuals (Subhash and Kamlesh), raising concerns about selective application of regularization policies.

Tribunal’s Directions

The CAT:

• Set aside the impugned Office Order dated 02.07.2018.
• Directed regularization of Raj Kumar’s services w.e.f 01.11.2017.
• Ordered the grant of all consequential benefits, to be implemented within three months of receipt of the judgment.

Legal Significance

This ruling strengthens the jurisprudence around:

• Temporary employees’ rights who have served in government institutions for long durations;
• Equal treatment and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
• Substance over form in employment classifications when employees effectively function as regular staff.

Conclusion

This case is a landmark win for casual and temporary workers in government setups, reaffirming the principle that lengthy, uninterrupted service with government-like duties must be acknowledged. It also warns against the misuse of technical clauses to deny legitimate employment rights.