Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
State Must Organize Its Perennial Workers On Sanctioned Footing: Supreme Court Grants Relief To U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Employees
|The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an order rejecting the Special Appeal against the dismissal of the appellants' Petition on the ground that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for regularization.
While directing regularization of some of the daily wage workers who were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, the Supreme Court has observed that State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements. The Apex Court also held that the State must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Special Appeal preferred by the appellants against the dismissal of their Writ Petition was rejected on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (second Respondent) for regularization.
Highlighting the fact that the State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench also held, “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.”
AOR Anil K. Chopra represented the Appellant while AOR Samar Vijay Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellants were engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992. Five of the appellants served as Class-IV employees (Peon/attendant duties), and the sixth Appellant served as a Driver (Class-III). They were paid as daily wagers and given consolidated monthly amounts (₹1,500 for Class-IV; ₹2,000 for Driver), while discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. In 1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV and sought sanction from the State Government. The Commission then furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers, which included the appellants.
The Commission reiterated its request, seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar, adverted to administrative exigencies but the State rejected the proposal citing financial constraints. Aggrieved, the appellants instituted a Writ Petition. A fresh recommendation was sent but the State declined sanction, again citing financial grounds. The Single Judge of High Court dismissed the appellants’ petition, holding that no rules for regularisation in the Commission had been shown. The Division Bench affirmed the same. It was in such circumstances that the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Addressing the aspect of State’s refusal citing “financial constraints”, the Bench said, “While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.”
Reference was made to an RTI response, which indicated the existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, an application filed by the appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the establishment. That application also set out the names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to this application. “The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those who received regularisation materially undermine the High Court’s conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed. 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”, it mentioned.
The Bench also made it clear that a later policy to outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades. It was further noticed that the writ petition filed by the appellants squarely challenged the state’s refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. “The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the State’s refusals in so far as they concerned the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work. Ordering the regularization of the appellants, the Bench also directed payment as arrears the full difference between the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and the amounts actually paid, for the period from April 24, 2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be of each appellant. In case of retired appellants, the Bench ordered that they should be granted regularization with effect from April 24, 2002, until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause. The Bench also held that any appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears.
“The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 998)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Anil K. Chopra, AOR Sriram P., AOR Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Advocates Shashwat Anand, Chintan Nirala, Saumitra Anand, Ankur Azad, Shashank Tiwari, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan, P Ashok
Respondent: AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Amit Ojha, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, S. D. Singh, AOR Bharti Tyagi, Advocates Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh, Meenu Singh, Siddharth Singh