Last Updated on January 12, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Post covers CPWD Regularization Case CAT Chandigarh Bench wherein similarly situated person were regularized. Hence the case. CPWD Regularization Cases at the CAT Chandigarh Bench involve contractual workers seeking permanent positions, with benches often directing the government to consider claims, sometimes granting benefits if similarly placed employees received them (like in cases for antedating regularization from 2006/2011) or dismissing pleas if appointments weren’t per recruitment rules, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders for similarly situated persons to receive benefits within a timeframe. Key themes include Equal Pay for Equal Work, equitable treatment, and directing departments to pass speaking orders on representations within 2 months. 

Key Aspects of CPWD Regularization Cases (CAT):

• Jurisdiction: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) handles service matters for Central Government employees, including those in CPWD.
• Common Issues: Disputes often arise over:
  • Denial of regularization despite long service.
  • Requests to antedate regularization benefits (e.g., from 1995/2006).
  • Claims for benefits under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.

Tribunal Directives:

• • Consideration: Directing respondents (CPWD/Govt) to decide on representations within a set period (e.g., 2 months).
  • Speaking Orders: Mandating reasoned and speaking orders when denying claims, especially if similar cases received relief.
  • Granting Benefits: In some instances, granting benefits (like antedating regularization) to match orders given to other similarly placed employees (e.g., for Motor Trolley Drivers in 2006/2011).

Outcomes:

• • Dismissal: Pleas may be dismissed if appointments were purely contractual and not against recruitment rules, or if employees accepted benefits without protest.
  • Favorable Orders: Directing authorities to extend similar benefits to applicants if they are similarly situated to those who have already been granted regularization. 

CPWD Regularization Case

Now let’s have the Judgment –

Judgment digest

Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

Date of Decision – 24^th January 2020

Also Read- Surender Singh vs M/O Urban Development on 27 September, 2018

Complainant:

1. Swaran Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh, aged 54 years, presently working as Motor Lorry Driver, Office of Executive Engineer, Amritsar, Central Division, CPWD, Amritsar and resident of House No. 21, Harkrishna Nagar, Link Road, Sultanpur – 144626.
2. Gurmail Singh son of Sh. Santa Singh, aged 52 years, Office of Executive Engineer, Amritsar, Central Division, CPWD Amritsar and resident of Ward No. 6, House No. 321, Raja Sansi Road, Tehsil Ajanala, District Amrtisar – 143001.
3. Sat Pal son of Sh. Saroop Singh, aged 52 years, working as MLD, Office of Executive Engineer, Jalandhar Central Division, Kendriya Sadan, 2nd floor, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar- 144009. And resident of 11, Silver Enclave Extension Ladowali Road, Jalandhar – 144001.

Opposites:

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Director General, Cntral Public Works Department, East Block-1, Level-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
3. Superintending Engineer, Jalandhar Central Circle CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, 2nd Floor, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar – 144001.

Quoram:

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)

Also Read- Mohinder Singh vs Union Territory on 14 September, 2015

Facts of the Case:

1. Learned counsel argued that the services of the similarly placed persons have been regularized with effect from the date they passed the trade test, but the applicants have been discriminated against by not granting the relevant benefit.
2. Taking a cue from the order dated 07.02.2019 whereby a junior has been regularized from retrospective date when he passed the trade test, the applicants moved a representation dated 16.05.2019.
3. It has been informed vide letter dated 22.07.2019 that the representation of the applicants has been forwarded to Respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel contended that till date the relevant benefit has not been extended to the applicants and prayed that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide their claim within a stipulated period.

Also Read- Chandigarh cat bench – Central Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicants, I dispose of this O.A., in limine, with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the applicants, as raised in the indicated representation in view of the fact that similarly placed persons have been given the relevant benefit.

If the applicants are found similarly situated like the persons who have been granted the benefit vide order dated 07.02.2019, the similar benefit be extended to the applicants, otherwise a reasoned and speaking order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Needless to mention that the disposal of the O.A. shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merit of the case. No costs.

Also Read- SARUP SINGH v. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

Example Scenario (Illustrative):

• An original application (O.A.) might direct CPWD to consider extending regularization benefits to a group of workers, similar to what other workers (like Motor Trolley Drivers) received, or to pass a reasoned order within two months, ensuring fairness and adherence to principles like equal pay. 

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

More on 99888-17966.