A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, recently reviewed a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerning the regularization of employment status.
Case Background
The petitioner, Kumar S, had approached the CAT seeking a directive for the Union of India to grant him temporary status and regularize his employment under the Narcotic Control Bureau. Kumar had been working as a contingent employee at the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Intelligence Unit for 15 years and claimed his services were vital to the department, thus entitling him to regularization.
In its ruling, the CAT referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which restricts the regularization of temporary employees. The Tribunal concluded that it could not issue an order for the petitioner’s service regularization but suggested that the department could consider his long-term engagement on a humanitarian basis, though it was not an obligation.
Arguments Presented
- Petitioner’s Argument: Kumar argued that he had been employed on a contingent basis for years, and his service had been beneficially utilized by the department. He believed this justified his claim for regularization and temporary employee status.
- Respondents’ Argument: The Narcotic Control Bureau contended that the petitioner was employed on a need basis and did not hold a continuous position or any sanctioned post. Citing the Umadevi judgment, the respondents argued that such contingent employment could not be regularized, and Kumar’s plea could not be entertained.
Court’s Findings
The High Court Bench observed that Kumar’s employment was not continuous but on a daily wage basis, with work assigned for specific days each month. The court further referred to the Umadevi case, which allows for the regularization of temporary employees with at least 10 years of service in sanctioned posts, but only as a one-time measure.
Considering the nature of the petitioner’s employment and the legal precedents, the court found no reason to overturn the Tribunal’s decision. The petition was dismissed, affirming that there was no entitlement to regularization under the circumstances.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court upheld the CAT’s dismissal of Kumar S’s plea for regularization, reaffirming that contingent and temporary employment without a sanctioned post does not warrant automatic regularization.
