In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that while daily wage employees do not have a legally vested right to seek regularization, the benefits of any regularization policy must be extended equally to all eligible employees. The ruling came in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Shyam Kumar Yadav & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25609/2018), decided on July 22, 2024.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order directing the regularization of appointment of Shyam Kumar Yadav, a daily wage worker at the Government Kalaniketan Polytechnic College, Jabalpur.
Background of the Case
Shyam Kumar Yadav was initially engaged as a daily-rated employee at the Collectorate rate on November 26, 1993. His services were terminated on May 12, 1995, but he was reinstated in 2006 on the recommendation of a Screening Committee. The State, however, claimed his reinstatement occurred in 2009.
The case went through multiple rounds of litigation, with the core issue being whether Yadav was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee, considering the government policy and his long service as a daily wager. The High Court ruled in Yadav’s favor, a decision upheld by its Division Bench on March 16, 2018.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether daily wage employees have a right to regularization and how regularization policies should be implemented.
The Court observed: “It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no legally vested right to seek regularisation of his services. However, if the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances”.
The Court noted that Yadav had worked continuously as a daily wager from 2005 to 2009, his eligibility for the post was uncontested, and his initial appointment was in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court criticized the State’s handling of the case, stating that “the affidavits or the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner-State from time to time, particularly the affidavit of the Commissioner, Technical Education, Bhopal, in purported compliance of our order dated 22.04.2024, are vague, evasive, and misleading”.
The Court also emphasized the importance of fair implementation of regularization policies, noting that “Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances”.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Madhya Pradesh’s Special Leave Petition and upheld the High Court’s order directing the regularization of Yadav’s services. The Court directed the State to grant Yadav all the benefits of regular employment, including arrears of pay and seniority, within three months.
Also Read
The case was argued by Mr. Bharat Singh, Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, and Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate, for the petitioners.
