The Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment affirming the rights of long-serving employees engaged on ad-hoc or contractual terms, criticizing the misapplication of its earlier ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006). The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, allowed the appeals in Jaggo & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. ____ of 2024), reinstating workers of the Central Water Commission (CWC) and directing their regularization.
The Court observed that Uma Devi, a landmark ruling designed to curb backdoor appointments, was being weaponized to deny rightful claims of regularization for workers engaged in long-term, essential roles.
Case Background
The appellants—Smt. Jaggo and three others—had served the CWC for extended periods ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Initially engaged on part-time and ad-hoc terms, their roles included sweeping, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks essential to the day-to-day functioning of the CWC.
In 2018, following the dismissal of their plea for regularization by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), their services were abruptly terminated. The Delhi High Court upheld this dismissal, citing their contractual nature of engagement and reliance on Uma Devi. The workers, denied relief, moved the Supreme Court to challenge these decisions.
Legal Issues
1. Misapplication of Uma Devi:
The central argument revolved around the misinterpretation of Uma Devi. The Court reiterated that the judgment aimed to curb illegal appointments through backdoor entries, not to deny regularization for employees with long-standing service performing essential tasks.
“The appellants’ work was not sporadic or incidental but integral and continuous for over a decade. To label such engagement as ‘temporary’ while simultaneously outsourcing the same duties reveals an inherent contradiction in the respondents’ stance,” the Court stated.
2. Nature of Engagement and Duties:
The Court rejected the respondent’s claim that the appellants’ roles were part-time and casual. Justice Nath observed,
“Cleaning, dusting, and maintenance tasks performed daily over extended periods are neither sporadic nor ad-hoc. They are indispensable to the functioning of any office and are akin to regular posts.”
3. Denial of Natural Justice:
The termination letters issued to the appellants lacked prior notice or explanation, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized,
“Even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before adverse actions are taken against them, particularly when they have unblemished service records spanning decades.”
4. Discriminatory Practices:
Evidence presented showed that other employees with shorter tenures or lesser qualifications had been regularized. The appellants contended that their exclusion amounted to arbitrary discrimination. The Court found merit in this argument, noting that the respondent department had failed to apply uniform standards of regularization.
5. Educational Qualifications:
The respondents argued that the appellants lacked the minimum educational qualifications required for regular appointments. The Court dismissed this, stating,
“Educational qualifications that were never enforced during the appellants’ long tenure cannot be retroactively imposed to deny their rights. Their consistent performance demonstrates their capability.”
6. Outsourcing as a Policy Shield:
The respondents outsourced the appellants’ tasks to private agencies during the pendency of judicial proceedings. The Court observed that this action demonstrated the perennial nature of the duties and a deliberate attempt to evade regularization.
“Replacing one set of workers with another under the guise of outsourcing highlights the necessity of the roles while exposing the respondents’ lack of bona fide intentions,” the judgment remarked.
Supreme Court’s Directives
The bench issued a series of firm directives:
1. Quashing Termination Orders:
The Court invalidated the termination orders issued in 2018, calling them arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice.
2. Reinstatement and Regularization:
The appellants were ordered to be reinstated with immediate effect. Their services were to be regularized, recognizing their prolonged, uninterrupted, and indispensable contributions to the organization.
3. Post-Retirement Benefits:
While the Court denied back wages for the period during which the appellants were out of service, it directed that the intervening period be counted towards continuity of service for post-retirement benefits.
Key Observations of the Court
The judgment was replete with critical observations underscoring the need for fair employment practices:
“Labels such as ‘temporary’ or ‘contractual’ cannot override the substantive nature of the work performed over decades.”
“The essence of employment lies not in its initial terms but in the reality of continuous service and indispensable duties.”
“Government departments, as model employers, bear an obligation to ensure fairness and stability in employment, especially when the nature of work is inherently regular.”
The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India (2024), reiterating that procedural lapses at the time of appointment cannot permanently deny employees their substantive rights accrued through continuous service.
