State As A Model Employer Cannot Be Indifferent To Workforce Who Contributed Indirectly To National Endeavours: Supreme Court Quashes ISRO’s Labour Scheme
The Court directed to regularise the services of the appellants and grant them permanent status effective from September 9, 2010, within four weeks.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court sets aside a restrictive employment scheme, Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012 for daily-wage workers at ISRO’s Mahendragiri unit, ruling that the State cannot bypass final judicial mandates for permanent regularisation through temporary stop-gap arrangements. The Court found it to be in direct contravention of earlier binding orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
It further observed that while the scheme purported to provide security until the age of 60, it effectively maintained the workers' status as temporary daily-rated employees without the benefits of a permanent establishment. By setting aside the restrictive clauses of this scheme, the Court ensured that the transition from ad hoc arrangements to structured, permanent employment, as originally mandated over a decade ago, is finally realised for workers who have served the organisation for periods ranging from 14 to 26 years.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while hearing a challenge against a Madras High Court order that had previously declined to interfere with the 2012 scheme, observed, “To disregard or discriminate against such individuals in matters of service recognition would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond. The State, as a model employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its workforce, those who have contributed, however indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount importance, with arbitrariness or indifference. Denying them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service status, while reaping the benefits of their labour, strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment”.
Advocate N Subramaniyan appeared for the appellant and S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General of India appeared for the respondents.
The factual matrix of the case involved a group of daily-wage employees engaged between 1991 and 1997 at the Mahendragiri Unit of the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), a premier R&D unit under the Indian Space Research Organisation.
These workers performed ‘sporadic’ but essential tasks such as loading, unloading, and shifting materials within a highly sensitive facility declared as a prohibited area under the Official Secrets Act. Despite their long years of service, they remained daily-wage earners, leading them to seek regularisation through a series of legal representations and applications starting in 2009.
The background history is marked by a prolonged legal journey where the Central Administrative Tribunal first ruled in 2010 that the respondents must formulate a scheme to employ these workers on a permanent basis by creating required posts.
This order was upheld by the Madras High Court in 2011 and subsequently by the Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality. However, in purported compliance, the government framed the 2012 Gang Labourers Scheme which only offered temporary status without reference to regular posts.
When the appellants challenged this scheme, the High Court eventually dismissed their claims in 2024, mistakenly relying on the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 judgment to suggest there was no right to regularisation despite the previous final orders.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-opening the merits of regularisation which had already been settled in the first round of litigation. The Bench remarked that the LPSC facility’s security concerns actually necessitated a structured, permanent workforce rather than a rotating pool of daily-rated employees.
“We are reminded of the humble beginnings of India's space programme. In 1963, when the first sounding rocket was launched from Thumba, its components were transported to the launch site on a bicycle. Similarly, in 1981, during the testing of India’s first experimental communication satellite APPLE, the satellite was placed on a bullock cart to create a nonmagnetic environment for antenna pattern tests in an open field. These anecdotes, rooted in historical fact, are not mere curiosities rather they encapsulate the spirit of ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unrelenting determination that defined our early scientific endeavours. They reflect the profound struggles faced by our scientists and the entire ecosystem that supported them in an era of limited resources”, the Bench noted.
“Before parting with the matter, we must express our serious disapproval of the manner in which the respondents have dealt with the present case. The obligation of the State to act as a model employer is not a mere exhortation but flows directly from the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and mandates fairness, non-discrimination, and reasoned decision-making in all State actions”, the Bench had remarked.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment and the 2012 Scheme insofar as it denied permanent status. Crucially, the Court ruled that the benefit of this judgment shall also extend to all similarly situated persons engaged under the said scheme.
Cause Title: R. Iyyappan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 431)
Appearances:
Appellants: N Subramaniyan, Pranav Sachdeva, AOR, P Rohit Ram, Sanyam Jain, Mishra Divya Santosh, Khushboo Singhal, Advocates.
Respondents: S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General of India, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR, Archana Surve Shinde Advocates.