Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Shiv Prasad Sharma and Deepak Kumar and Rajendra Kumar Saini and Hajari Lal Meena and Shankar Lal Meena and Ramesh Singh Naruka and Kamlesh Kumar Khotiwala and Sonu Dixit and Naveen Kumar Pipaliwal V. Union Of India and Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation)

CW/11690/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a group of ten petitioners, all casual workers employed in various capacities within the Income Tax Department, who challenged the dismissal of their OA by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The tribunal had dismissed their application for want of jurisdiction, referencing an earlier decision which had upheld the government's stance on not regularizing casual workers to curtail expenses. The petitioners sought similar treatment as given to other employees in previous litigations, arguing against discrimination. The High Court of Rajasthan, while not deciding on the jurisdiction issue, allowed the petitioners to re-approach the tribunal with more detailed pleadings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692285 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Union of India and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kadar and Ors., Union of India and Ors. Vs. Suresh Bahadur and Ors., Union of India and Ors. Vs. Chandra Sekhar Sharma & Ors., Union of India & Ors. Vs. Leelam Chand & Ors., Kalu Ram & Ors., Kailash Chand Jat & Ors.
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: TANVEER AHAMAD
• Keywords: Casual Workers; Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax Department; Jurisdiction; Service Provider; Contractual casual workers

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11690/2023 1. Mahesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 450, Bhojpura Basti, Shakar Marg, 22 Godam, Jaipur-302006, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of Pr. DIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 2. Shiv Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Satye Narayan Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Post- Toda- Bhata, Th. Bassi, Jaipur-303301, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of DGIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 3. Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 2512, Harijan Basti, Amer, Th. Amer, Jaipur Employed As Casual/daily Wager Sweeper (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of DGIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 4. Rajendra Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Prabhai Lal Saini, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Lakda Mandi, Watika, Th. Sanganer, Jaipur - 303905, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of Pr DIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 5. Hajari Lal Meena Son Of Shri Lohadi Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village-Namolav, Th. Dausa, Dausa- 303303, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Driver (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of Pr. DIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 6. Shankar Lal Meena Son Of Shri Jayram Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Post Chawandiya, Bassi, Th. Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur 303301, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of Pr DIT (Inv.), Jaipur. 7. Ramesh Singh Naruka Son Of Shri Laxman Singh Naruka, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Post-Kerwawal, Th. Malakheda, Distt. Alwar 301406, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of (Inv.), Jaipur. 8. Kamlesh Kumar Khotiwala Son Of Late Shri Ranjeet Kumar Khotiwala, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village-Jhar, Post-Dudoli, Th. Bassi, Jaipur-303301, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of (Inv.), Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] 9. Sonu Dixit Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Dixit, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Brahamano Ka Bass, Watika, Sanganer, Jaipur, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of (Inv.), Jaipur. 10. Naveen Kumar Pipaliwal Son Of Shri Suresh Chand Pipaliwal, Aged About 320 Years, Resident Of 4139, Top Khana Ka Rasta, O P. Bazar, Jaipur 302001, Employed As Casual/daily Wager Peon (MTS) (Outsourcing), In The Office Of Pr Cit (Central), Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), C R Building, Statute Circle, B D Road, Jaipur 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This petition is filed jointly by ten petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’) dismissing the Original Application (for brevity ‘OA’) for want of jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were engaged in Income Tax Department as casual workers directly and also through service provider. The case of some of the petitioners is that they were directly engaged as contractual casual workers but [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] later were allowed to be continued through service provider. There was an earlier round of litigation by the similarly situated employees, one of them being OA No.17/2012 and other connected matters titled as Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 29.10.2012 by the Jodhpur Bench of the tribunal. The issue of jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain OA filed by the casual workers was also gone into. The order of the tribunal was challenged before the High Court and was upheld vide order dated 19.03.2015. The relevant portion is quoted below:- “True it is, the Government of India under the office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 desired to curtail unwarranted expenses and further emphasised not to regularise casual labourers, but that cannot be a reason to terminate the original applicants from service who are working on casual basis only and not claiming for regularisation of their service. The continuance of such employees shall in no case put any extra economic burden upon the employer. The persons who shall be employed through service providers shall also be entitled for same remuneration and the service provider too shall claim its commission, therefore, that will in no manner satisfy desire of the petitioner respondent to curtail expenses. On the other hand, removal of the respondent original applicants who are in service of the petitioners from several years shall be quite arbitrary as they will be thrown out of employment without any wrong on their part. The position would have been different if the [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] petitioner would have been going to have regular recruitment against the posts occupied by the original applicants but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner want to remove the original applicants from service just to have labour through contractor with a view to reduce expenditure but that object, as already stated, cannot be served as the applicants too are working on casual basis only.” 3. The SLP filed by the Union of India (for brevity ‘UoI’) against order dated 19.03.2015 was dismissed on 15.02.2016. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income T ax (‘PCIT’) issued an order dated 31.12.2015 stating that in view of the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.49/2013 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kadar and Ors.), Union of India and Ors. Vs. Suresh Bahadur and Ors., Union of India and Ors. Vs. Chandra Sekhar Sharma & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Leelam Chand & Ors. dated 25.03.2014, 26.03.2014 and 28.03.2014 respectively and the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT), the daily rate or wages of the casual workers engaged in the region covered by these court cases are fixed provisionally at Rs.511/- per day for matriculate workers and Rs.475/- per day for non-matriculate workers. 4. On 04.12.2018 the PCIT issued order giving the mode of engagement of casual workers who were applicants in OA No.128/2018 (Kalu Ram & Ors.), and OA No.291/129/2018 (Kailash Chand Jat & Ors.), initially engaged directly by the department but later on outsourced through service providers and are continuing from the date of engagement but the engagement [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] was subject to the guidelines/instructions issued from time to time in pursuance to the direction of Jodhpur Bench of the tribunal in its order dated 22.02.2011 passed in OA No.121/2010. 5. Aggrieved of restricting the benefit of the decision only to the parties to the litigation, the petitioners filed OA before the tribunal seeking similar treatment as is being given to the applicants in the OA No.17/2012 Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India decided on 29.10.2012. The tribunal accepted the preliminary objection of the UoI with regard to the maintainability of OA being filed by the casual workers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the prayer before the tribunal was only to the extent that there should be no discrimination by the department in extending relief to the similarly situated employees qua one who were party in the earlier litigation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the OA. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings. 9. It is evident that the joint OAs and joint writ petitions have been filed taking a common factor that the employees were casual workers of the income tax department. From the pleadings in the present petition and as per the case set up, the employees at serial Nos.3, 8 and 9 (as depicted in the OA before the tribunal) were not directly engaged by the department as casual workers. A joint petition was filed arraying as party the workers not directly engaged by department and making a prayer that petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] should be given treatment similar to workers directly engaged as casual workers by department and were applicants in earlier OA. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the decisions available with him is not disputing the fact that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed in earlier litigation rather the decision of the tribunal was implemented by the department. 11. The tribunal though has considered the decision of this Court wherein the challenge was posed by the UoI to the decision of the tribunal in OA No.17/2012 but has not taken into account that the issue of jurisdiction was also decided by the tribunal. 12. Be that as it may, we clarify that we are not commenting upon at this stage as to whether that the tribunal had jurisdiction or not. The picture that emerges that in spite of issuance of order by the PCIT giving parity in pay to the similarly situated employees who were before the tribunal, the mode of engagement vide order dated 04.12.2018 has been restricted to the employees who were parties in the earlier litigation. 13. In absence of clear factual foundation emerging either from the pleadings in the writ petition or from the OA, it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the tribunal afresh, by making pleading with regard to the similar employees to which each of the petitioner equates, along-with the details of litigation of the similar situated employee and the final outcome. 14. The parties would be at liberty to raise all the factual and legal issues before the tribunal. The tribunal in eventuality of fresh OAs being filed shall consider them in accordance with law without [2025:RJ-JP:11822-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-11690/2023] being influenced by the impugned order. At cost of repetition it is clarified that we have neither dealt the matter on merits nor decided the issue of jurisdiction of tribunal to entertain OA filed by casual workers. 15. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/30 Reportable:- No "