The Supreme Court has allowed the civil appeals of the employees who worked as casual workers with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, for a considerable period. The Apex Court ordered their regularisation after noting that they were similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in the Department, whose services had been regularised pursuant to various earlier orders.

The appellants had approached the Apex Court challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “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 Appellant, while ASG Archana Pathak Dave represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellants had registered themselves with the Employment Exchange and claimed to have worked as casual workers with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, for a considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would be conferred temporary status and their services would be thereafter regularised, the appellants initially made representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring an Original Application with a prayer to consider their cases for regularisation in service.

The Tribunal held that the services of the appellants were not liable to be regularised on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on April 10, 2006, in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (2006). Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the aforesaid decision. The High Court declined to interfere with the aforesaid adjudication and dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied with the said judgment, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the appellants in the Convenience Compilation filed by them pursuant to the order dated September 2, 2025, had sought to urge that the appellants were similarly situated as the appellants in the case of Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2018).

Therein, the appellants had been appointed as casual employees with the Income Tax Department in the year 1993-94, after which they were working continuously. The Apex Court in that judgment noted that the regularisation of similarly situated employees at other places had been undertaken since the year 2006 and discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the said appellants. It, accordingly, directed the regularisation of their services from July 1, 2006 alongwith the consequential benefits. The Bench thus held that the present appellants were similarly situated as the appellants in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra).

The Bench further found that the law laid down in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors.(2024) supported the case of the appellants in their prayer for regularisation.

Thus, allowing the civil appeals, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court. “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. (supra)”, the Bench ordered while also directing that the benefits be released in favour of the appellants within three months.

Cause Title: Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 156)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Prashant Shukla, Anushree Shukla, Kartik Kumar, AOR M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers

Respondent: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, Senior Advocate Parameshwar, Advocates Sunita Sharma, Vimla Sinha, Santosh Kr, Ishaan Sharma, AOR Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice JK MaheswariJustice Atul S Chandrukar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.