ATUL KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 2640 of 2026

Atul Kumar and 3 others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Union of India and 3 others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ankit Gaur, Naveen Srivastava for
                                 Sameer Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.) with
                                 Purnendu Kumar Singh

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 21.02.2025 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby
the Original Application ('OA') filed by the petitioners has been
dismissed.

2. The OA was filed seeking quashing of the e-tender issued by
respondent no. 3 for providing casual labours (unskilled) for the work of
annual maintenance to protected monuments under Allahabad Sub-circle
of Archaeological Survey of India and a direction to the respondents to
grant the petitioners temporary status and give all the benefits granted by
Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2018 for engagement of casual labour
by the Central Government/Departments.

3. The petitioners claimed to be casual labours working under the
respondent-Archaeological Survey of India who are engaged on different
dates and have been performing the work of maintenance and care of
centrally protected monuments. The petitioners claimed to have been
appointed in the year 2012 and have been performing their duties for
different periods during different years. Their salaries were credited
regularly to their bank accounts. The petitioners relied on various Office
Memoranda issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, particularly the OMs dated 07.06.1988, 10.09.1993, 16.10.2014
and 14.06.2016 dealing with engagement of casual labours in
                                                      WRIA No. 2640 of 2026
                              2


Government offices and granting temporary status to those who had
completed one year of continuous service. It was claimed that their
continuous service and nature of work make them eligible for
regularization under the applicable OMs and the respondents were not
justified in issuing e-tender for providing casual labours (unskilled).

4. The respondents contested the claim made. The issuance of tender was
based on Rule 197 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 permitting
engagement of manpower through outsourcing for non-consulting
services. It was submitted that the petitioners were engaged for casual or
intermittent work against sanctioned estimates on a yearly basis and once
the assigned work was complete, their services were dispensed with.
Further, merely being re-engaged for fresh work does not give the
petitioners any vested right to continue working indefinitely or claim
regularization. It was submitted that DoP&T Scheme of 1993 was
applicable to those who were employed as of 10.09.1993 and had
completed 240 days of service in the preceding year to be eligible for
regularization and as the petitioners were engaged much later, the Scheme
had no application to them.

5. Further, emphasis was laid on the observations made by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the 1993 Scheme was not an ongoing Scheme and as
the subsequent OMs dealt with casual labours with temporary status, the
same is not applicable to the petitioners.

6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that
1993 Scheme applied to workers engaged as of 10.09.1993 and as the
petitioners were engaged well after the cut off date, the Scheme was not
applicable to them. The subsequent OMs did not confer any right to seek
temporary status or regularization and consequently, dismissed the O.A.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that
the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the OA. Submissions were
made that the OM dated 07.06.1988, which dealt with recruitment of
casual workers and persons on daily wages, was specifically continued in
the OM dated 10.09.1993 and the OM of 1988 provided for payment at
the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale +
                                                       WRIA No. 2640 of 2026
                               3


dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day and in similar
circumstances, Tribunals at Jabalpur and Cuttack have granted relief,
whereas in the present case, the Tribunal has wrongly refused the said
relief.

8. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.
Submissions were made that the reliance placed on the judgements of the
Jabalpur and Cuttack Bench is totally misplaced, as the petitioners have
not claimed the relief, as was granted in the said cases. The relief is
specifically regarding the benefit of 2018 OM which deals with
applicability of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission
to the pay scale of casual labours with temporary status. It was submitted
that the petitioners were not conferred temporary status at any stage, as
under the OM of 1993 and all subsequent OMs, they were not eligible and
therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the OA.

9. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties
and have perused the material available on record.

10. A perusal of the relief clause in the OA indicates that the petitioners
nowhere claimed payment of wages in terms of OM of 1988 i.e. 1/30th of
the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale + dearness allowance for
work of eight hours a day. Specific claim was made to give benefit of OM
dated 19.02.2018. The OM dated 19.02.2018 pertained to applicability of
the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission to casual
labours with temporary status.

11. Admittedly, the petitioners had not been conferred with the temporary
status at any point of time, as the only OM dealing with grant of
temporary status is of the year 1993 which only pertains to those who
were in employment on the date of issuance of the said Scheme.
Admittedly, the petitioners joined as casual labours in the year 2012 i.e.
after about 19 years of the issuance of the notification of 1993 and as
such, the same had no applicability to their case.

12. The reliance placed on the judgements of the Jabalpur and Cuttack
Bench is ex-facie misplaced, in so far as the relief claimed in the present
OA is concerned, as it is nowhere the case of the petitioners that in terms
                                                                                          WRIA No. 2640 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    of OM of 1988 they were entitled to particular emoluments. In view
                                    thereof, the attempt made to refer to applicable judgements cannot be
                                    countenanced.

                                    13. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.



                                                                (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
                                    February 23, 2026
                                    SL




Digitally signed by :-
SHYAM LAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad