High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed.
Union of India & Others v. T.S. NajimuDeen & C.T. Ajithkumar
Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. M. Shaffique
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2020-11-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- Original petition is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- T.S. NajimuDeen, S/O T.K.Saidu, Contingent Employee (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence), Thozhuthungal House, Irumpunpalam, Valara P.O., Idukki District-685561
- C.T.Ajithkumar, S/O Kandankutty, Contingent Employee (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence), Chittedath Thazhath House, Karikenkulam, Karaparamba P.O., Kozhikode-673010
Respondents
- Union of India represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001
- Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, New Delhi-110001
- Director General of Revenue Intelligence, D Block, Indraprastha Bhavan, 7th Floor, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
- Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence, No.1103, 13th Cross, Indira Nagar II Stage, Bengaluru-560038
- Additional Director of Revenue Intelligence, No.19/1069-A, Tali, Chalapuram P.O., Kozhikode-673002
- Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence, Valakunnel, Kaithoth Road, Palarivattom, Kochi-682025
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Respondents
- • Shri P. Vijayakumar, ASG of India
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Kerala High Court judgment in OP (CAT) No.196 of 2020 concerns the challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing the respondents to consider grant of temporary status and regularisation to two contingent employees of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioners-respondents (Union of India, CBIC, DRI and its officers) contend that the CAT erred in directing regularisation in light of constitutional and recruitment principles. The applicants before the CAT had been engaged since 1994–1998 as sweepers, sepoys and drivers, ostensibly through contractors, performing routine government work in addition to clerical tasks like photocopying. The judgment relies on the Supreme Court’s Umadevi decision (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi) and cites paragraph 53, which discusses regularisation as a possible one-time measure in cases of irregular appointments in sanctioned posts, while cautioning against bypassing the constitutional scheme. It also references Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar to outline two contingencies for regularisation and the need for sanctioned vacancies and due procedure. The High Court ultimately refuses to interfere with the CAT’s order, noting the petitioners’ use in the department and the need to regularise only within constitutional safeguards. The petition is dismissed, leaving the CAT order intact.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contend that they were continuously engaged as contingent employees since 1994–1998 and performed not only sweeping but also duties such as photocopying, sepoy, and driving for the government department. They rely on the Umadevi framework and the several cited precedents to argue that irregular appointments in sanctioned posts may be regularised as a one-time measure, and that the six-month time frame and the need to follow due procedure should be observed to regularise where warranted. They emphasize long service, functional utility, and the government’s obligation to provide security of tenure in appropriate cases, urging that the CAT’s order to consider temporary status and regularisation be left intact.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the CAT’s directive to grant temporary status and regularisation runs counter to the constitutional scheme and established recruitment norms. They stress that regularisation cannot bypass sanctioned vacancies, due process, and the long-settled rules governing postings and tenure. They rely on Umadevi’s clarifications (paragraph 53) and Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that regularisation must be tightly circumscribed and merit-based, ensuring no bypass of constitutional mandates. They urge the Court to refrain from extending relief beyond what the law permits and to keep the line of recruitment framed by sanctioned posts and proper vacancies.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. | (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Positive | Cited for principles on regularization of irregular appointments and security of tenure; used to justify potential regularization on merits within constitutional constraints; however, the court declines to interfere in the present case. |
| Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar | (1997) 2 SCC 1 | Positive | Cited to outline two contingencies for regularization and the requirement that initial entry must be against sanctioned vacancies and follow due procedure. |
| S.V. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka | Not provided | Positive | Referenced as part of the discussion on irregular appointments; used to explain the landscape in which regularization might be considered on merits. |
| R.N. Nanjundappa v. State of Mysore | Not provided | Positive | Cited in the context of irregular appointments and regularization considerations within sanctioned posts. |
| B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu | Not provided | Positive | Cited along with Narayanappa and Nanjundappa to illustrate the regime of irregular appointments and possible regularization. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union of India & Others v. T.S. NajimuDeen & C.T. Ajithkumar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942**
**OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 IN OA 653/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001**
- **2 CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DLEHI-110 001.**
- **3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, D BLOCK, INDRAPRASTHA BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002.**
- **4 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NO.1103, 13TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.**
- **5 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NO.19/1069-A, TALI, CHALAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002**
- **6 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, VALAKUNNEL, KAITHOTH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 025.**
**BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA**
## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT NO.3:**
- **1 T.S.NAJIMUDEEN, S/O. T.K.SAIDU, CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE (DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE), THOZHUTHUNGAL HOUSE, IRUMPUNPALAM, VALARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 561.**
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
2
**2 C.T.AJITHKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KANDANKUTTY, CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE (DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE), CHITTEDATH THAZHATH HOUSE, KARIKENKULAM, KARAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 010**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
3
## JUDGMENT
## Shaffique, J
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order in O.A.No.180/00653/2019 dated 18.11.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the aforesaid original application. The petitioners, by challenging the aforesaid order, submits that the Tribunal had committed serious error in directing the petitioners/respondents to consider grant of temporary status and regularisation to the applicants, in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] .
2. The applicants before the Tribunal are persons, who were engaged on temporary basis under the Revenue Intelligence Department and they are working as sweeper, sepoy and driver since 1998 and 1994. They are continuously working in the said Department.
3. Petitioners contended that the applicants were engaged by the Contractor to whom works were outsourced and wages were paid to them by the Contractor.
4. The Tribunal, however, arrived at a finding that in addition
to the work of sweeping; the applicants/respondents used to
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
4
do the works relating to taking of photocopies, duties of sepoy, driving duty etc., for the Government Department. The Tribunal found that a concession has to be extended to the applicants/respondents especially in the light of observation made by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra) especially paragraph No.53, which reads as under :
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N.NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
5
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
## 5. Also at paragraph No.14 in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar
## [(1997) 2 SCC 1], it was held as under:
14. In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularization in any service including any government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularize them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one precondition that the
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
6
initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularization may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularized and security of tenure may be made available to the incumbent concerned. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment.
6. That apart, reference was made to orders passed by the Bengaluru Bench in O.A.Nos.170/907/2015 to 170/912/2015, which was confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka. Insofar as the Tribunal had only directed the petitioners to consider grant of temporary status and regularisation to the applicants, in the light of the Apex Court judgement in Umadevi's Case (supra), we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should interfere.
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
7
7. That apart, we find from the materials placed on record that these persons had been usefully employed in the respective establishment, right from the date when they were being engaged and, therefore, it is not appropriate for us to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The original petition is dismissed.
Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd/GOPINATH P., JUDGE
AMV/26/11/2020
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
8
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00653/2019**|
|---|---|
||**DATED 26.08.2019 FILED BEFORE THE CAT,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH**|
|**ANNEXURE-A27**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**ORDER**<br>**F**|
||**NO.DRI/CHN/MISC/2017/906**<br>**DATED**|
||**04.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE JOINT**|
||**DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A28**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**ORDER**<br>**F**|
||**NO.DRI/CHN/MISC/2017 DATED 24.06.2019**|
||**ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT**|
|**ANNEXURE-A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER**|
||**NO.DRI/CLT/ESTT/94 DATED 01.02.1994**|
||**ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A2**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**ORDER**<br>**F**|
||**NO.DRI/CHN/ESTT./98 DATED 30.03.1998**|
||**ISSUED BY THE SENIOR INTELLIGENT**|
||**OFFICER**|
|**ANNEXURE-A3**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**LETTER**<br>**NO**|
||**DRI/RU/ESTT./2004 DATED 30.12.2004**|
||**ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A4**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY **<br>**OF**<br>**THE **<br>**LETTER**<br>**F**|
||**NO.DRI/CRU/ESTT/CONT/95/398**<br>**DATED**|
||**11.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY**|
||**DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D.R.I. F.NO.G-**|
||**25017/1/00-BG DATED 16.10.2001 ISSUED**|
||**BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A6**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**LETTER**|
||**F.NO.DRI/CRU/ADMN/2011**<br>**DATED**|
||**28.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT**|
||**DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A7**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**LETTER**|
||**F.NO.DRI/CHN/ADMN/2011**<br>**DATED**|
||**11.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE JOINT**|
||**DIRECTOR**|
|**ANNEXURE-A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN**|
||**WPC NOS 42814/2016 AND 55957-61/2016**|
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
9
- **DATED 15.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU**
- **ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2008 IN OA NO.145/2008 ISSUED BY THE SECTION OFFICER**
- **ANNEXURE-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP DATED 01.09.2014 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA**
- **ANNEXURE-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2014 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA**
- **ANNEXURE-A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.33/2017 DATED 15.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGLORE ZONE**
- **ANNEXURE-A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.73/2017 DATED 28.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGLORE ZONE**
- **ANNEXURE-A14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO/.C 18013/64/2018 AD.IIIB DATED 14.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE**
- **ANNEXURE-A15 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT ORDER (NGO) NO.14/2019 DATED 16.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD**
- **ANNEXURE-A16**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT ORDER (NGO) NO.24/2019 DATED 23.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD**
- **ANNEXURE-A17 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT ORDER (NGO) NO.44/2019 DATED 01.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD**
- **ANNEXURE-A18 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT ORDER (NGO) NO.45/2019 DATED 01.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD**
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
10
- **ANNEXURE-A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT ORDER (NGO) NO.46/2019 DATED 01.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD**
- **ANNEXURE-A20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.06.2017 ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR**
- **ANNEXURE-A21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATED 26.05.2017**
- **ANNEXURE-A22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DRI/CHN/ADMN/15 DATED 17.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR**
- **ANNEXURE-A23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DRI/CHN/ADMN/15 DATED 17.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR**
- **ANNEXURE-A24 TRUE COPY OF THE DRI.F.NO.A22015/04/2016-ESTT.PART I) DATED 04.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR**
- **ANNEXURE-A25 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/BZU/CHN/ADMIN./2017 DATED 26.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATED 26.05.2017**
- **ANNEXURE-A26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 IN OA NO.681/2017 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
- **ANNEXURE-A29 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 IN CP(C) 35/2019 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
- **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.180/00653/2019 DATED 28.10.2019 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
- **ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME ISSUED BY THE DOP & T DATED**
- **ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER NO.DRI/CRU/ESTT/CONT/95/47 DATED 07.02.2002 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE**
OP (CAT).No.196 OF 2020
11
**BOARDS IN THIS REGARD VIDE F.NO.18013/3-2015.AD.IIIB DATED 14.03.2017 ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY THE LETTER F.NO.C18013/67/2018-AD.IIIB DATED 10.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MA IN OA NO.180/00653/2019 DATED 28.10.2019 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00653/2019 DATED 18.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
**RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL**
**TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**