HC Upholds Regularisation of Monument Attendants Working Over 10 Years

Case Details: Union of India vs. Chatur Singh - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 780 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Navin Chawla & Madhu Jain, JJ.
• Ajit Kumar Pathak, Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC, Prajesh Vikram Srivastava & Ms Akriti Pathak, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• A.K. Trivedi, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondents had been working as Monument Attendants on a casual basis with the Archaeological Survey of India from 1995 to 2011. They filed an application before the Tribunal, claiming that the nature of the duties performed by them was regular and permanent.

However, instead of appointing them as regular employees, they had been appointed on a casual basis. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondents. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the High Court.

It was noted that it was only post the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, when the post of Monument Attendant, which was previously a Group ‘D’ post, was upgraded to a Group ‘C’ post and was re-designated as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), that the Recruitment Rules for the post of MTS were framed.

Further, the respondents had been engaged in service prior to that. It was also stated that the services of the respondents would be discontinued after the total sanctioned strength of vacancies had been filled through the regular employment selection process, applying the applicable principles.

High Court Held

The High Court held that respondents had been working continuously for more than 10 years performing essential, perennial duties related to maintenance and upkeep of centrally protected monuments/sites, and thus, in terms of Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Tribunal had rightly directed regularisation of respondents.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (para 11) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Chatur Singh v. Union of India [OA No.387 of 2019, dated 06-12-2023] (para 1)
• Ms Anjali Negi v. Union of India [O.A. No.3465 of 2019] (para 1)
• Ghulam Nabi Ahangar v. Union of India 2018: JKLHC-SGR:109 (para 6)
• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para 7)
• Sanju Singh v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 9198 of 2019, dated 13-9-2023] (para 8)
• Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (para 9)
• SHRIPAL v. Nagar Nigam [2025] 1 taxmann.com 9348 (SC) (para 12).