The Flag Officer Commanding In Chief ... vs K.M.Kala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1592 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Flag Officer Commanding In Chief ... vs K.M.Kala on 13 February, 2026

                                                       2026:KER:13137
OP(CAT) No.324 of 2019
                                    1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                    &
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
  FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
                         OP (CAT) NO. 324 OF 2019
         AGAINST   THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED    28.02.2019   IN   OA
NO.251 OF 2015 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
BENCH

PETITIONERS:
    1     THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF
          HEADQUARTERS,
          SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND KOCHI 682004

     2      UNION OF INDIA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
            INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI.

     3      THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
            COMMAND STADIUM, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-04

            BY ADVS.
            O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
            SHRI.VIVEK A.V., CGC
RESPONDENT:
          K.M.KALA,
          AGED 48 YEARS
          COMMAND STADIUM LABOURER (SAFAIWALA), NAVAL
          AIRCRAFT YARD, KOCHI-682004

            BY ADV SRI.C.J.VARGHESE VINU

     THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2026, THE  COURT  ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2026:KER:13137
OP(CAT) No.324 of 2019
                                   2


                             JUDGMENT

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,J The present Original Petition (CAT) assails the

judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed in OA No.251/2015 by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby

the Original Application filed by the respondent herein has

been allowed.

Facts:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

respondent herein had approached the learned Tribunal

praying for the following reliefs:

                    "i)      Call for the records leading
          to Annexure.A3 and set aside the same.
                    (ii)     Direct the respondents to

regularise the service of the applicant with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

(iii) such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may find just and proper."

2.1. The respondent herein was working as 2026:KER:13137

Safaiwala in the Command Stadium under the Southern Naval

Command, Kochi since the year 1994 continuously and

therefore she is entitled for regularization. Similarly situated 4

persons engaged as 'Malis' along with the respondent were

working in the Stadium. To get the services of other 4 persons

regularized, they approached the learned Tribunal in OA

No.170/1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench. The learned Tribunal held that the

application was not maintainable before the Tribunal. The

services of the 4 Malis were regularized by the direction of this

Court in OP.No.11247/1990 vide judgment dated 24.09.1994.

The Apex Court had confirmed the said judgment. The

respondent was under the belief that the petitioners herein

would regularize her service based on Annexure A1 judgment

dated 20.03.2002 in WA No.5/1995 since they were also

similarly situated. The petitioners took steps to terminate her 2026:KER:13137

services against which she filed WP(C) No.20656/2003 before

this Court and ultimately the same was disposed of vide

judgment dated 14.03.2008 directing the first petitioner herein

to take appropriate action on the representation dated

20.05.2003, in the light of the benefits granted to similarly

situated persons. When no action was taken, the respondent

filed Contempt Petition No.983/2008.

2.2. In the meanwhile, the claim of the respondent

was rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 11.06.2008 in

Annexure A3. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P.

(C).No.37498/2008 before this Court challenging Annexure A3.

The Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court as per judgment

dated 23.02.2010. Thereafter again aggrieved, the respondent

filed W.A.No.465/2010. The Division Bench of this Court found

that the respondent should have approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of The 2026:KER:13137

Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (hereinafter, the 'Act' for

short) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] and

dismissed the Writ Appeal with liberty to approach the

Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide the

impugned order allowed the Original Application No.251/2015

and directed regularization within a period of 3 months with

all benefits like fixation of pay at the minimum of pay scale of

Group 'D' should be given to her as well from the date of filing

of this Original Application i.e.,18.03.2015. Being aggrieved, the

petitioners herein had filed the Present Original Petition

before this Court.

Petitioner's Contentions:-

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in

allowing the Original Application, as the learned Tribunal did 2026:KER:13137

not consider the three issues namely:-

(i) Maintainability of the Original Application.

(ii) The respondent is not similarly placed and the judgment in

the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others v. Umadevi

and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] have no applicability in the present

case.

(iii) Cut off date for regularization was 1993 as per Umadevi

(supra), whereas the respondent joined the service in the year

1994. The respondent was appointed as Safaiwala in the year

1994 purely on daily wage basis and no regular vacancy existed

at that time or even today. Therefore, the direction to

regularize could not have been issued.

3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that

Umadevi (supra) would be applicable as a one time measure

only on those workers who have worked continuously for

more than ten years on a sanctioned post. The learned 2026:KER:13137

Tribunal also failed to appreciate the fact that there is

distinction with regard to 4 'Malis' since those were considered

for regular appointment much earlier to the decision in the

case of Umadevi (Supra). On these grounds, the order passed

by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

Respondent's Contentions:-

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that so far

as issue of maintainability is concerned, the same stands

already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the first

round of litigation wherein liberty was granted to approach

the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the

Act. So far as second objection raised that the respondent is

not similarly placed is also misplaced inasmuch as 4 'Malis'

have been regularized and the regularization has been upheld

by the Apex Court particularly taking into consideration the 2026:KER:13137

length of service rendered by the applicants therein. The

respondent has already put in more than 30 years of

continuous service without any break, therefore, she is

entitled for regularization as per Umadevi (supra) as well as

the subsequent interpretation made by the Apex Court so far

as Umadevi's case (supra) is concerned in the case of Narendra

Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others

[(2018) 8 SCC 238], wherein it is held that the regularization

rules should be given pragmatic interpretation and in case an

employee has completed 10 years of services on the date of

promulgation of rules, their services should be regularized.

4.1. The Learned counsel further submitted that

the cut off date mentioned in Umadevi's case (supra) is

10.04.2006 and not 1993. The respondent joined as Safaiwala in

1994 and had already completed more than 10 years of service

before the cut off dated ie, 10.04.2006. Therefore, the 2026:KER:13137

respondent has a legal right to get herself regularized. The

learned Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the

Original Application. The present Original Petition being bereft

of merit and substance is liable to be dismissed.

Discussion and Analysis:-

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on both

sides and perused the records.

6. The admitted position in this case is that the

respondent is an irregularly appointed employee of the Union

of India. The regularization was sought by her on the ground

that she had put in more than 10 years of service before the

cut off date and therefore, she is eligible for regularization.

The decision in Umadevi (supra) was intended to put a full stop

to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally

appointing daily wage workers and continuing with them

indefinitely. The rule of law requires appointments to be made 2026:KER:13137

in a constitutional manner and the state cannot be permitted

to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public

employment which would adversely affect those who could be

employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this

reason that the concept of one time measure and a cut off date

was introduced in the hope and expectation that the state

would seize and desist from making irregular or illegal

appointments and instead make appointments on a regular

basis.

6.1. The concept of one-time measure was further

explained by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka

v. M.L.Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247], wherein the Apex Court held

as under:-

"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been 2026:KER:13137

working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one- time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should 2026:KER:13137

consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one- time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 the date of decision in Umadevi without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure."

2026:KER:13137

7. The purpose and intend of the decision in

Umadevi (supra) was therefore, two fold, namely, to prevent

irregular or illegal appointment in the future and secondly, to

confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed

in the past.

8. Taking into consideration the fact that the

respondent in the present case has already put in more than 30

years of service continuously, without any break, we find no

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Tribunal. This OP(CAT) being bereft of merit and substance is

hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

The petitioners herein are directed to implement the

impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, if not already implemented, as expeditiously as

possible preferably within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and grant 2026:KER:13137

all consequential benefits as granted by the learned Tribunal

within the aforesaid period.

sd/-

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

sd/-

P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd 2026:KER:13137

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 324 OF 2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA 180/00251/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/03/2002 IN W.A.NO.5/1995 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KEERALA.

EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/03/2008 IN WP(C) 20656/2003 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/02/2010 IN WP(C) 37498/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/11/2014 IN W.A.NO.465/2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA 180/00251/2015 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

EXHIBIT P2(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 01/07/1997.

EXHIBIT P2(R2) TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 14/11/2008.

EXHBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 180/00251/2015 DATED 28/02/2019 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

EXHIBIT p4 TRUE COPY OF THE NAVAL AIR CRAFT YARD LETTER 135/8/2 DATED 28-02-2020 ALONG WITH THE LATEST PAYMENT DETAILS MADE TO THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.921 OF 1995.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP NO.

37537 OF 2018 DATED 25-02-2019