2018 (3) TMI 2033 - SC - Income Tax

Regularization of casual employees in the Income Tax Department - appellants were appointed as casual employees in the Income Tax Department in the year 1993-94 since then they were working continuously HELD THAT - Decision in the State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT was pronounced by this Court, the same provided that the employees who had rendered services continuously for ten years without the cover of the court's order be regularized as the onetime measure. The circulars and regularization of the similarly situated employees at other places and various recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under the cover of court s order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services. We direct that the services of the appellants be regularised w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with the order in a period of three months from today.

Summary

Issues:
Regularization of services of casual employees in the Income Tax Department.

Analysis:
The appellants, who were casual employees in the Income Tax Department since 1993-94, sought regularization of their services, which were recommended multiple times for regularization/temporary status. The decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 stated that employees serving continuously for ten years without court orders should be regularized as a one-time measure. The Government of India, based on Uma Devi, issued an Office Memorandum regarding regularization of qualified workers. Circulars were issued by Respondent No.1 for regularization of employees serving for ten years in line with Uma Devi. However, despite recommendations and similar regularization of other employees, the appellants' services were not regularized, leading to a claim rejection by Respondent No.3, even though they fulfilled the criteria for regularization.

The appellants filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was rejected. Information on vacancies from 1990 to 2008 was supplied under the Right to Information Act. The CAT's decision was challenged in the High Court, and a Review Petition was also dismissed, prompting the appeals.

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, referred to the Uma Devi case clarifying that irregularly appointed employees serving for ten years in sanctioned posts should be considered for regularization. The Court noted that the appellants' services should have been regularized in 2006 as per Uma Devi, and discriminatory treatment was evident. Consequently, the Court directed the regularization of the appellants' services from July 1, 2006, with consequential benefits, and ordered compliance within three months. The judgments of the High Court and CAT were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the entitlement of casual employees to regularization as per the Uma Devi case, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and compliance with regularization directives.