The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the practice of engaging employees on temporary or daily-wage basis for decades, calling it “ad-hocism” that undermines public trust and constitutional guarantees. The Court held that the state, as a constitutional employer, cannot balance budgets at the expense of workers who perform recurring public functions.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the principle of equal protection.
“The state is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices,” the bench observed.
The judges emphasised that financial stringency, though a legitimate policy concern, cannot be used as a blanket justification for denying workers their due rights. “‘Ad-hocism’ thrives where administration is opaque,” the Court noted, stressing the need for transparency in maintaining establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements.
The bench further underlined that the government must justify, with evidence, why it resorts to precarious engagements over sanctioned posts, and how such practices align with constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16 and 21.
The ruling came while deciding appeals filed by employees engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed their plea for regularisation, holding that they were only daily wagers and no such provision existed under the commission’s rules.
Reversing the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court directed that all the employees be regularised with effect from February 24, 2002. For this purpose, the state and its successor body, the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, were ordered to create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres of Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent), without any preconditions.
The bench cautioned that refusal to sanction posts cannot escape judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. Non-speaking rejections citing generic financial constraints, while ignoring functional necessity and longstanding reliance on daily wagers, were held to be unreasonable and contrary to the standards expected of a model public institution.
“Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running,” the order stated.
