SUPREME COURT: SELECTIVE REGULARISATION OF DAILY WAGERS WITHIN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT BREACHES PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY:

The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling against the practice of selective regularization of similarly situated employees. It held that daily wage workers engaged in perennial work cannot be discriminated against by denying them regularization while granting the same benefit to other workers in identical circumstances within the same establishment.

The case arose from the appeal of five Class-IV employees and one Driver who had been continuously employed with the Respondent-Commission between 1989 and 1992. Despite having rendered decades of uninterrupted service, their requests for regularization were rejected by the State. The authorities justified their decision by citing financial constraints and a ban on the creation of new posts. However, during the same period, other similarly placed employees were regularized against available vacancies. Dissatisfied with this discriminatory approach, the appellants pursued legal remedies, but the High Court upheld the State’s decision. This prompted the employees to approach the Supreme Court.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found merit in the employees’ plea. Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the Court, observed that selective regularization in the same establishment, while retaining other workers on daily wages despite their comparable tenure and duties, amounted to a violation of the principles of equity. The Court emphasized that as a constitutional employer, the State is expected to operate at a higher standard of fairness. It has an obligation to place perennial workers on sanctioned posts, to prepare a budget for lawful engagement, and to faithfully implement judicial directives. The judgment noted that any delay in fulfilling these obligations is not simply administrative negligence but rather a deliberate act of denial that undermines the livelihoods and dignity of workers who have spent years in precarious employment.

In outlining the remedy, the Court devised an operative scheme intended to convert constitutional guarantees into real outcomes. It mandated the creation of supernumerary posts where vacancies were unavailable, directed the full regularization of the appellants, and ordered that they be granted all consequential financial benefits. The Court further required the State to submit a sworn affidavit of compliance, underscoring that fairness in employment and transparency in administration are not discretionary matters but obligations flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

As a result, the Court directed the immediate regularization of the appellants with effect from 2002, the year when the High Court had earlier directed reconsideration of their claims. They were granted full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits. In situations where sanctioned posts were lacking, the Court ordered the State and its successor establishment, the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, to create supernumerary posts in the appropriate cadres, whether Class-III (Driver or equivalent) or Class-IV (Peon, Attendant, Guard, or equivalent). The appellants were to be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay scale for the post, with protection of higher last-drawn wages if applicable. They would also be entitled to increments as per the relevant pay grade. For the purposes of seniority and promotion, their service was to be reckoned from the date of regularization.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, reaffirming the constitutional mandate that the State must ensure fairness, equality, and dignity in employment.