In a significant relief to long-serving daily wage workers, the Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to regularise the services of four casual employees of the Income Tax Department in Gwalior.
The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the workers could not be treated differently from others whose services were already regularised in similar circumstances.
“The appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this Court,” the judgment noted while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s earlier decision.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The appellants - Pawan Kumar and three others - were engaged as casual workers in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, between 1993 and 1998. They worked as sweepers and a cook.
Their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange, and they were engaged after interviews. Over the years, they continued working on daily wages.
In 2012, when their request for regularisation was not accepted, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench. The Tribunal rejected their plea in 2015, holding that they did not meet the requirement of ten years of continuous service as on 10 April 2006 - a condition flowing from the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3).
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Tribunal’s view in 2019. The workers then approached the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
The Workers’ Argument
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that several similarly placed daily wage workers from the same office had already been regularised following earlier Supreme Court rulings.
They relied particularly on the decision in Ravi Verma vs. Union of India (2018), where five daily wage workers from the same Gwalior office were granted regularisation from 1 July 2006.
A list of daily wage workers as on 31 October 2005 - reproduced in the judgment - included both the earlier beneficiaries and the present appellants. The Court noted that their names continued to appear in subsequent lists as well.
The appellants also cited the Court’s recent ruling in Jaggo vs. Union of India (2024), arguing that their appointments were at most “irregular” but not “illegal.” They stressed that the work they performed was permanent in nature and later outsourced, showing that the department continued to require those services.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Stand of the Union Government
The Income Tax Department opposed the appeal.
It argued that the appellants did not satisfy the ten-year continuous service condition as of April 2006 under the Umadevi ruling. The department also submitted that no sanctioned posts were available in Gwalior for regularisation and that the workers were engaged only on a casual basis.
Since both the Tribunal and the High Court had rejected their claim, the department contended there was no reason for interference.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Bench disagreed with the earlier findings.
The Court pointed out that in Ravi Verma and later in Raman Kumar vs. Union of India (2023), it had already directed regularisation of similarly placed daily wage workers in the same department.
It observed that the present appellants were part of the same list of daily wage workers as those who were earlier regularised.
“Undisputedly, the names of the present appellants also find place in the said list… The present appellants are, therefore, similarly situated,” the Court recorded.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
The Bench further relied on the principles laid down in Jaggo, clarifying that the Umadevi judgment was never meant to deny relief to workers who had served for long years performing essential and recurring duties.
Quoting from Jaggo, the Court noted that long and continuous service in posts performing necessary functions cannot be ignored merely because of procedural technicalities.
The Bench concluded that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in mechanically applying Umadevi without examining whether the case involved discrimination.
The Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated 26 August 2019.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail of Absconding Murder Accused in 2017 MP Political Clash Case
The Court directed that the services of the appellants be regularised with effect from 1 July 2006 - on the same terms granted in earlier cases like Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar.
It also ordered that all consequential benefits be released within three months.
Additionally, certain applicants who had been impleaded during the proceedings were held entitled to the same relief.
The civil appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 29214 of 2019
Decision Date: February 13, 2026
