The Supreme Court has ruled against the selective regularization of daily wage employees in public institutions, asserting that those engaged in perennial work cannot be discriminated against by denying them regularization while extending the benefit to similarly situated workers. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Nath authoring the judgment, underscored that public employment must be organized with fairness, reasoned decision-making, and respect for the dignity of work, stating: “When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running.”
The appellants—five Class-IV employees (performing peon/attendant duties) and one Driver (Class-III)—were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992 on a daily wage basis. From April 8, 1997, they received consolidated monthly payments (₹1,500 for Class-IV; ₹2,000 for Driver) while working regular office hours, supporting ministerial functions like application scrutiny and dispatch. The Commission, established under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, handles large-scale teacher and principal recruitments, necessitating ongoing administrative support. The Commission sought post sanctions multiple times: on October 24, 1991, for fourteen Class-III/IV positions; on December 27, 1997, providing service details of daily wagers including the appellants; and on October 16, 1999, for two Driver and ten Peon/Mali/Chowkidar posts, citing administrative exigencies. The State rejected these on November 11, 1999, and November 25, 2003 (post-High Court direction for reconsideration), citing financial constraints and a ban on new posts.
The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000, seeking to quash the November 11, 1999, refusal, mandamus for post creation and regularization, and non-interference with their services. On April 24, 2002, the High Court directed fresh recommendations and decisions, interimly ordering minimum pay-scale payments. However, the Single Judge dismissed the petition on May 19, 2009, citing no regularization rules, vacancies, or applicability of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 precedents. The Division Bench affirmed this on February 8, 2017, prompting the appeal.
The Supreme Court held the High Court erred by treating the plea as mere regularization without adjudicating the State’s arbitrary refusals, which ignored the Commission’s needs, appellants’ long service, and available vacancies (evidenced by RTI and unrebutted I.A. No. 109487/2020 showing five Class-IV/Guard and one Driver posts). The bench clarified Umadevi distinguishes illegal from irregular appointments and does not justify perpetual precariousness, citing recent rulings like Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221): “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.”
Noting the Commission’s 2024 merger into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and outsourcing proposals, the court ruled supervening changes cannot extinguish accrued rights. As a constitutional employer, the State must organize perennial workers properly, creating budgets and implementing directions: “As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers.”
The court directed:
(i) Immediate regularization from April 24, 2002, with supernumerary posts if needed, at minimum regular pay-scale with last-drawn wage protection and increments;
(ii) Full arrears (difference between regular pay/allowances and amounts paid) from April 24, 2002, to regularization/retirement/death, payable within three months (with 6% compound interest on default);
(iii) For retired appellants, recalculated pension/terminal dues within three months;
(iv) For deceased (e.g., Appellant No. 5), arrears to death date and terminal dues to legal representatives within three months;
(v) Compliance affidavit from the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, or equivalent, within four months. No costs ordered.
Case Details: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018
Lawcutor 