1 CGHC010541532025 2026:CGHC:41550-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14053 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Dubey @ Dinesh Dubey S/o Late Vedram Dubey Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Sulabh Sauchalay, Near Water Tank, Math Puraina, District Raipur C.G. Pin Code 492001 (Wrongly Mentioned As Dinesh Dubey S/o Late Bedram Dubey) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 3 - Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011 (Added Because Respondent Herein Is A Proper Party) 4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Pin No. 492-001. 6 - Smt. Jayanti Nihal W/o Shri Abhimanu Nihal Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Police Control Room Utkal Nagar Civil Lines Raipur C.G. 492001. ...Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. SG. 2 Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge Order on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice 24.09.2026 1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for the following reliefs: “10.1 To call records pertaining to Original Application (O.Α.) No. 713/2011 decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur; 10.2 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No. 713/2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur (M.P.) [ANNEXURE P-1]; 10.3 To set-aside impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed in Original Application (O.Α.) No. 713/2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench at Jabalpur (M.P.) (ANNEXURE P-1] as it has already been set- aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 17.11.2025 in M.P. No. 5182/2025 granting similar reliefs; 10.4 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to quash orders dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and instruction dated 14.03.2012 [ANNEXURE P- 2] for shifting the daily wagers (petitioner) to contractual employment system; 3 10.5 To pass suitable Direction(s)/Writ(s)/Order(s) to hold that all the subsequent events such as transferring petitioner under Contractual Employment System and subsequent illegal removal from engagement since April 2024 to becomes infructuous and should be treated as not in existence; 10.6 To regularize the service of the petitioner in the respondent department and grant arrears, consequential benefits along with interest @12% per annum. 10.7 To grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.05.2026 in WPS No.7027/2021 and batch of writ petitions. He, therefore, prays for allowing this writ petition also in the light of the order dated 14.05.2026 passed in WPS No.7027/2021. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/UOI acknowledging the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this writ petition was left out from the batch of writ petitions to be decided alongwith WPS No.7027/2021. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that the issue involved in this writ petition is similar to that of WPS No.7027/2021 and batch of writ petitions which 4 were allowed on 14.05.2026 with the following conclusion:- “53. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court arrives at a considered and unequivocal conclusion that the impugned common order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the same proceeds on an unduly rigid and mechanical application of the principles laid down in Uma Devi (supra), without appreciating the subsequent evolution of law and the factual realities of the present case. The Tribunal has failed to take into account the long, continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners, the perennial nature of duties discharged by them, the recommendations made by the department itself for their regularization, and the subsequent authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have clarified that the doctrine laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) cannot be applied in a manner so as to perpetuate injustice or defeat legitimate claims of employees engaged in irregular, but not illegal, appointments. 54. So far as the first category of petitioners, namely those who continue in service, is concerned, this Court holds that their claim for regularization cannot be 5 defeated solely on the ground that they had not completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. The material on record clearly establishes that they have rendered long years of continuous service extending over decades, are performing duties of a permanent and perennial nature, and their engagement, at best, suffers from procedural irregularity rather than illegality. The subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have consistently emphasized that such employees are entitled to fair and equitable consideration for regularization and cannot be denied such benefit on hyper-technical grounds. Accordingly, the petitioners in this category are held entitled to be considered for regularization, and the respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for regularization of their services in a time-bound manner, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in later decisions, and without being constrained by the rigid cut-off date of 10.04.2006. 55. In respect of the second category of petitioners, namely those whose services were abruptly terminated, this Court finds that their case stands on an even stronger footing. The termination of their services, in many instances without written orders, notice, or adherence to due process, is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, 6 and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such action, coupled with the fact that the same work has been continued through outsourcing agencies, clearly establishes an unfair and discriminatory practice on the part of the respondents. Furthermore, the dismissal of their Original Applications by the Tribunal does not operate as a bar to grant of relief in the present proceedings, particularly in light of subsequent judicial developments and the continuing nature of the cause of action. The principles of parity and non-discrimination, as consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, mandate that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently. Consequently, the petitioners in the second category are also held entitled to relief. The action of the respondents in terminating their services is hereby declared illegal and unsustainable, and the respondents are directed to reinstate such petitioners (wherever not already reinstated) and to consider their cases for regularization on the same footing as the petitioners who have continued in service. Such consideration shall be undertaken expeditiously and in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. 7 56. In culmination, therefore, both categories of petitioners are held entitled to succeed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside. The policy decisions dated 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 14.03.2012, to the extent they adversely affect the rights of the present petitioners and operate to deny them fair consideration for regularization, are also held to be arbitrary and unsustainable in their application to the present case. 57. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand allowed, with the aforesaid directions.” 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid conclusion of order dated 14.05.2026 passed in WPS No.7027 of 2021 and other batch of writ petitions. SDSd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Jamal.