Last Updated on November 13, 2026 by Satish Mishra
CAT Chandigarh Directs Archaeological Survey of India to Extend Regularisation Benefits to Long-Serving Daily-Wage Employees. Service matters involving the regularisation of casual, daily-wage, or contingency-paid workers in the Survey of India (SoI) fall directly under the original jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) pursuant to Section 14 and Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Key Legal Guidelines in Survey of India Regularisation
- DoP&T 1993 Scheme. The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 governs central government departments. Courts and CAT benches have repeatedly held that this scheme was a one-time measure applicable only to workers in continuous employment as of September 1, 1993, rather than an ongoing scheme for subsequent hires. [1, 2, 3]
- The Umadevi Rule & 10-Year Exception. Under the landmark Supreme Court ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), backdoor or irregular appointments made without following established recruitment rules do not confer a vested right to regularisation. However, under the Umadevi exception and the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated December 11, 2006, workers appointed irregularly (not illegally) against sanctioned vacant posts who have completed 10 years of continuous service without the protection of court orders may be considered for one-time regularisation. [1, 2, 3]
- Equal Pay for Equal Work (1/30th Pay). Even where formal regularisation is denied due to the absence of sanctioned posts or post-1993 engagement, CAT benches routinely enforce DoP&T OM dated June 7, 1988. Workers performing duties identical to regular Group ‘D’/MTS staff are entitled to wages at 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance (DA). [1]
- Pensionary Benefits Without Formal Regularisation. In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has held that casual labourers who were validly granted “temporary status” and completed the qualifying years of service cannot be denied pensionary benefits solely because the department failed to pass a formal order of regularisation. [1, 2]
Common Grounds in Survey of India CAT Litigation
- Field Season / Contingency Staff (Khalasis, Mazdoors, Mates). Survey of India historically engages contingency-paid workers for field surveys. Litigation typically centers on whether continuous engagement across multiple field seasons meets the threshold of 240 days (or 206 days in 5-day offices) per year required for temporary status or 1/30th pay.
- Outsourcing via Contractors. Departments frequently attempt to replace long-serving direct casual labourers with outsourced agency staff under General Financial Rules (GFR). CAT benches consistently hold that while a department has the administrative right to outsource, one set of casual/contract workers cannot be replaced by another set of casual/contract workers.
- Sanctioned Post Requirement. For an Original Application (OA) seeking regularisation to succeed before CAT, the applicant must demonstrate that a sanctioned post exists and that they met the requisite age and educational qualifications under the Recruitment Rules at the time of initial engagement. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Case Reference: O.A. No. 5/2023
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla
Date of Decision: 14 May 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J), and Hon’ble Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, Member (A)
Can government departments deny regularisation to daily-wage employees who have worked continuously for more than two decades when similarly situated employees in the same department have already been granted regularisation?
Can the principle of parity be invoked when a Tribunal has granted relief to similarly placed casual labourers and the department has implemented that decision by regularising their services?
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla, considered these issues in O.A. No. 5/2023, decided on 14 May 2026.
The case involved three daily-wage employees working as Attendants under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), who claimed to have rendered uninterrupted service since 1994, 1995 and 2001 respectively.
The employees sought regularisation, benefits relating to minimum wages and other consequential service benefits.
The Tribunal held that their case was covered by an earlier decision of the Principal Bench concerning similarly situated casual labourers of the same department. Since the earlier decision had attained finality and the department had already implemented it by regularising eleven employees, the Tribunal directed that the same benefits be extended to the applicants.
Facts of the Case
The three employees had been engaged by the Archaeological Survey of India on a daily-wage basis on different dates:
- The first employee had been engaged from 1 April 2001.
- The second employee had been engaged from 1 May 1995.
- The third employee had been engaged in 1994.
They were working as Attendants and claimed to have continuously performed duties relating to the guarding and protection of monuments under the control of the department.
According to the employees, they had rendered approximately 21, 27 and 28 years of continuous service respectively.
They contended that the work performed by them was of a permanent nature and comparable to the duties performed by regularly appointed employees.
Despite their long service, their cases had not been considered for regularisation.
Claim for Minimum Wages under the DoPT Office Memorandum
The employees relied upon the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 7 June 1988.
The said instructions provided for payment to directly engaged casual workers and daily wagers at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale, subject to the applicable conditions.
They also relied upon a communication dated 11 May 2009 issued by the Director General of the department, along with a covering communication dated 5 October 2009, directing the Circle and Branch Offices to make payments in accordance with the relevant instructions.
The employees stated that although the department had subsequently extended the benefit of minimum wages to them, they had not received the benefit from their respective dates of initial engagement.
They had submitted a representation dated 28 January 2014 seeking the benefit under the applicable Office Memorandum.
Claim for Regularisation of Services
The employees further relied upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11 December 2006, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in the regularisation-related matter commonly known as the Uma Devi judgment.
The instructions contemplated a one-time exercise for considering eligible irregularly appointed employees who had completed ten years of service as on 10 April 2006, subject to the prescribed conditions, including the requirement concerning duly sanctioned posts.
The employees claimed that they fulfilled the relevant conditions and that the department had failed to consider their cases for regularisation.
They also relied upon subsequent DoPT instructions dated 7 October 2020, which reiterated the need to implement the one-time regularisation exercise for eligible employees.
The employees therefore approached the Tribunal seeking regularisation, minimum wages and consequential service benefits.
Reliefs Sought Before the Tribunal
The employees sought directions for:
- Consideration of their cases for regularisation in accordance with the DoPT instructions dated 11 December 2006 and 7 October 2020.
- Payment of minimum wages in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 7 June 1988 from their respective initial dates of engagement.
- Extension of the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment concerning regularisation of eligible irregularly appointed employees.
- Regularisation against the relevant posts in the department.
- Extension of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that their engagement had commenced before 1 January 2004.
Stand of the Department
The department contested the application and raised several objections.
1. Employees were engaged for casual and intermittent work
The department contended that the employees had been engaged for casual and intermittent activities, including:
- Cleaning of monuments.
- Removal of vegetation and wild growth.
- Maintenance-related activities at protected monuments and sites.
It denied that they had been appointed against sanctioned posts.
2. Duties were different from regular employees
The department argued that the duties of casual labourers could not be equated with those of regular Attendants or Beldars.
According to the department, regular employees were entrusted with additional responsibilities, including official tours, preparation of inspection reports and reporting matters concerning monuments directly to superior officers.
The casual labourers, on the other hand, worked under the guidance and supervision of regular staff.
3. Minimum-wage benefits had already been extended
The department submitted that two of the employees had been granted payment at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale, along with admissible allowances, with effect from 1 August 2010.
The third employee had received approval for the same benefit in May 2014.
Accordingly, the department argued that no further relief survived regarding minimum-wage payments.
4. Regularisation issue was pending before the High Court
The department also raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability.
It pointed out that the issue concerning regularisation of casual labourers working in the department was pending before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 1956 of 2021.
It further stated that the High Court had stayed the operation and execution of an award dated 1 October 2019 and the consequential execution proceedings.
5. Recruitment to MTS posts through the Staff Selection Commission
The department also relied upon its communication dated 18 June 2015, under which the Staff Selection Commission had been directed to fill vacant Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) posts.
According to the department, recruitment to Group D/MTS posts was required to be made through the prescribed recruitment process and not through regularisation of casual labourers.
Tribunal’s Consideration of the Earlier Regularisation Judgment
An important development during the proceedings was the reliance placed by the employees on an earlier decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3465/2019.
That matter concerned similarly situated casual labourers working under the Archaeological Survey of India.
The employees contended that the earlier decision had granted relief to similarly placed workers and that they were entitled to the same treatment on the principle of parity.
The Tribunal also considered the subsequent judicial developments.
It noted that the earlier decision had attained finality and that the department had implemented the same following an order dated 24 September 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 16940/2024.
Pursuant to the implementation, the department had issued an order dated 13 January 2026 regularising the services of eleven employees to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff.
The regularisation was in Level-1 of the Pay Matrix, carrying a pay scale of ₹18,000–₹56,900, with initial basic pay of ₹18,000 and admissible allowances.
Findings and Observations of the Tribunal
After considering the rival submissions and the documents on record, the Tribunal made the following important observations.
1. Long and continuous daily-wage service was admitted
The Tribunal noted that the employees had been engaged on a daily-wage basis since 1994, 1995 and 2001 respectively.
Their continuous engagement without any break in service was an admitted fact.
The Tribunal also recorded that the benefit of payment at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale, along with admissible allowances, had already been extended to them from different dates.
2. Earlier decision covered similarly situated employees
The Tribunal found that the controversy involved in the present application was squarely covered by the decision of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 3465/2019.
That decision concerned similarly situated casual labourers working under the Archaeological Survey of India and had resulted in relief being granted to them.
3. Earlier decision had attained finality
The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision had attained finality.
The department had already implemented the decision by regularising the services of eleven employees as Multi-Tasking Staff pursuant to the subsequent judicial directions.
4. No distinguishing feature was established
The Tribunal specifically observed that the present employees were identically situated and that no distinguishing feature had been pointed out by the department to deny them the same relief.
This was a crucial consideration in applying the principle of parity.
The Tribunal therefore concluded that the employees were entitled to the same benefits that had already been extended to the similarly situated employees under the earlier decision.
Final Decision of the Tribunal
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla, allowed the Original Application.
The Tribunal directed the respondents to extend to the applicants the same benefits as had been granted in O.A. No. 3465/2019, which had been affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 16940/2024 and implemented by the department through its order dated 13 January 2026.
The Tribunal directed that the entire exercise be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order.
There was no order as to costs.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This decision is important for long-serving casual and daily-wage employees working in government departments and statutory organisations.
It highlights the significance of parity where similarly situated employees have already secured relief through judicial proceedings and the department has implemented the resulting directions.
The following principles emerge from the decision:
1. Parity with similarly situated employees
Where employees are identically situated and no distinguishing feature is established, the department may be required to extend the same benefits already granted to similarly placed employees through a final judicial decision.
2. Implementation of earlier judicial decisions matters
The Tribunal considered not merely the earlier judgment but also the fact that the department had implemented it by regularising eleven employees.
3. Long service and regularisation claims
The length of continuous service was an admitted feature of the case. However, regularisation must still be considered in the context of the applicable legal principles, sanctioned posts and relevant judicial directions.
4. Equal treatment in service matters
A public authority should not arbitrarily deny similar treatment to employees who are identically situated, particularly when the earlier relief has attained finality and has been implemented.
5. Earlier relief may provide a basis for consequential claims
The Tribunal directed extension of the same benefits granted in the earlier litigation, rather than undertaking a separate and isolated determination of every service-related claim.
Filing Procedure Before CAT
- Exhaustion of Departmental Remedies. Before filing an OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the employee must submit a formal written representation to the Surveyor General of India or the concerned Directorate/Geo-spatial Data Centre (GDC) and wait six months if no decision is made.
- Limitation Period. An OA must be filed within one year from the date of the final administrative order rejecting the claim (or within one year after the expiry of the six-month waiting period). Delay requires a separate Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation of delay.
- Jurisdictional Bench. The OA must be filed before the specific regional CAT Bench (such as Principal Bench New Delhi, Chandigarh, Allahabad, Kolkata, or Hyderabad) having territorial jurisdiction over the Survey of India circle or office where the applicant is posted.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Can long-serving daily-wage employees claim regularisation?
They may seek consideration under applicable government instructions and judicial principles. Eligibility depends on the relevant conditions, including the nature of appointment, sanctioned posts and the applicable legal framework.
Q2. What was the importance of the earlier CAT decision in this case?
The Tribunal found that the earlier decision in O.A. No. 3465/2019 covered similarly situated casual labourers and had attained finality. The department had already implemented it by regularising eleven employees.
Q3. What is the principle of parity in service matters?
The principle of parity requires similarly situated employees to receive equal treatment, unless a legally sustainable distinguishing feature justifies different treatment.
Q4. What benefits had the department already extended to the employees?
The department had extended payment at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale, along with admissible allowances, from different dates to the employees.
Q5. What pay scale was granted to the eleven employees regularised earlier?
They were regularised as Multi-Tasking Staff in Level-1 of the Pay Matrix, with a pay scale of ₹18,000–₹56,900, initial basic pay of ₹18,000 and admissible allowances.
Q6. Within what period must the department implement the Tribunal’s directions?
The department was directed to extend the same benefits within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.
Q7. Did the Tribunal expressly grant the Old Pension Scheme or minimum wages retrospectively from initial engagement?
The operative direction requires extension of the same benefits granted in the earlier litigation. The order does not separately set out an independent determination granting every individual relief originally claimed, including retrospective minimum wages from initial engagement or the Old Pension Scheme. Those issues should therefore be assessed in the context of the benefits covered by the earlier decision and applicable rules.
Conclusion
The decision reinforces the importance of consistency and equal treatment in public employment.
Where a department has already implemented a final judicial decision granting regularisation benefits to similarly situated casual labourers, it must have a legally sustainable basis for treating other identically situated employees differently.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, therefore directed the Archaeological Survey of India to extend the same benefits to the employees within eight weeks.
For long-serving daily-wage employees seeking regularisation or parity with similarly placed workers, this judgment provides an important reference on the application of earlier judicial decisions and equal treatment in service matters.
Case Reference: O.A. No. 5/2023, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla, decided on 14 May 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is based on the Tribunal’s order discussed above and should not be treated as legal advice. The applicability of the decision depends upon the relevant recruitment rules, service conditions, sanctioned posts and facts of each individual case.
More on 99888-17966
