The Supreme Court of India has ruled that selective regularisation of daily-wage employees, while denying the same benefit to others who are similarly placed in terms of tenure and duties, constitutes unequal treatment and is a “clear violation of equity.” A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made this observation while ordering the regularization of daily wagers who had served the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for over three decades.
The judgment, in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., quashed the Uttar Pradesh government’s repeated refusal to sanction posts for these employees. The Court directed their regularization with retrospective effect from 2002 and ordered the creation of supernumerary posts for this purpose, holding that the State cannot perpetuate precarious employment through arbitrary actions.
Background of the Case
The appellants, comprising five Class-IV employees and one Class-III driver, were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (“the Commission”) between 1989 and 1992. They performed perennial and integral duties such as scrutinizing applications, dispatch, and other administrative support functions. Despite the continuous nature of their work, they were kept on daily-wage or consolidated pay status for years.
Recognizing the need for sanctioned posts, the Commission itself resolved on October 24, 1991, to create fourteen posts and sought the State Government’s approval. On February 11, 1998, the Commission forwarded a list of fourteen daily wagers, which included the appellants, for consideration. However, the State government rejected the proposal on November 11, 1999, citing “financial constraints.”
Litigation in the High Court
The employees challenged the State’s refusal in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 2000. On April 24, 2002, the High Court directed a fresh consideration of the matter. The State, however, again rejected the proposal on November 25, 2003, citing the same financial reasons.
Subsequently, a single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on May 19, 2009, on the grounds that there were no vacancies or rules for regularization, a decision that was later upheld by a Division Bench on February 8, 2017. The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s handling of the case, stating it had wrongly reduced the dispute to a “mechanical enquiry about ‘rules’ and ‘vacancy'” while ignoring the core issue of the State’s arbitrariness.
On Unequal Treatment and Selective Regularisation: The Court’s primary finding was that the appellants had been subjected to discriminatory treatment. It pointed to an unrebutted application filed by the appellants which “set out the names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the same Commission.” The bench held that this selective action materially undermined the High Court’s conclusions and revealed unfairness. The judgment declared, “Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.”
On State’s “Financial Constraints” Plea: The Court also found the State’s repeated rejections based on a “generic plea of ‘financial constraints'” to be arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that the decision failed to engage with the Commission’s own assessment of need and the decades of uninterrupted service rendered by the appellants. “A non-speaking rejection… does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution,” the Court stated.
On the Misapplication of Umadevi: The judgment clarified that the High Court’s reliance on the Umadevi case was “misplaced.” It distinguished the present case as a challenge to the “State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts” and not an attempt to bypass the constitutional scheme of employment. The bench cited recent decisions cautioning that Umadevi cannot be used as a “shield to justify exploitation through long-term ‘ad hocism’.”
The Final Decision and Directions
Finding the State’s actions unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It underscored that justice in such cases requires the “imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance.” The Court issued the following directions:
- Regularization: All appellants shall be regularized with effect from April 24, 2002.
- Creation of Posts: The State and the successor body are directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants.
- Pay and Arrears: Appellants are entitled to arrears, calculated as the full difference between the regular pay and the amount actually paid from April 24, 2002. These must be paid within three months.
- Retired and Deceased Appellants: The benefits of regularization and arrears shall extend to appellants who have retired or passed away during the litigation.
- Compliance: A senior official must file an affidavit of compliance before the Supreme Court within four months.
The Court concluded by emphasizing the State’s duty as a constitutional employer, remarking that the “long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.”
