Case Details: Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India [2026] 183 taxmann.com 497 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Atul S. Chandurkar & J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
-
Prashant Shukla, Ms Anushree Shukla & Kartik Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
K. Parameshwaran, Sr. Adv., Mrs Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mrs Sunita Sharma, Ms Vimla Sinha, Santosh Kr., Ishaan Sharma, Advs., Sudarshan Lamba & Raj Bahadur Yadav, AORs for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellants were engaged as casual/daily-wage workers with the Income Tax Department. They sought the regularisation of their services on a parity with similarly situated employees whose services were regularised pursuant to this Court’s decisions.
However, their prayer for regularisation was refused by the Tribunal and the High Court on the ground that they did not satisfy the criterion of having rendered ten years of regular service as on 10.04.2006 in terms of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] taxmann.com 2495 (SC).
It was noted that since the appellants were similarly situated as the appellants in Ravi Verma v. Union of India [2018] 92 taxmann.com 373/255 Taxman 73 (SC) and Raman Kumar v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of 2023, they could not be discriminated from the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court observed that since the nature of work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of offices, the recurring nature of these duties necessitated their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled.
The Supreme Court held that since the appellants were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, they were to be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. Thus, appellants were entitled to the same reliefs granted by this Court in Ravi Verma as well as in Raman Kumar, and, therefore, their services were to be regularised from 01.07.2006.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No.3460/2018, dated 26.08.2019 (para 11) set aside
- Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 (para 9)
- Ravi Verma v. Union of India [2018] 92 taxmann.com 373/255 Taxman 73 (SC)/Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2018
- Raman Kumar v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of 2023, dated 3-7-2023] (para 10) followed
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 taxmann.com 2495 (SC) /2006 INSC 216 (para 10) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 taxmann.com 2495 (SC) (para 2)
- Ravi Verma v. Union of India [2018] 92 taxmann.com 373/255 Taxman 73 (SC) (para 3)
- Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 (para 3)
- Raman Kumar v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of 2023, dated 3-7-2023] (para 8).
The post Casual Workers in Income Tax Department Entitled to Regularisation on Parity | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
