'Continuous Service Akin To Permanent Employees': SC Distinguishes 'Uma Devi' Judgment To Allow Plea For Regularization
The Supreme Court allowed appeals filed by some Railway Employees who sought regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed.
The Court was hearing appeals arising out of the Judgment of Allahabad High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition of appellant Vinod Kumar challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. They contended that despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, they have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan observed, “The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement.”
Brief Facts-
The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected Vinod Kumar's plea for regularisation and absorption into the post of 'Accounts Clerk,' where he and others were temporarily appointed. Despite working continuously in these positions since 1992, spanning over 25 years, their applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, citing that they were appointed temporarily for a specific scheme. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that employment under a temporary scheme does not grant rights similar to those of permanent employees.
The Court noted that the essence of employment and the rights cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time.
The Court stated that the High Court has incorrectly applied the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, which held that temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.
The Court stated that the reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service.
The Court noted that the promotion of appellants was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi.
The Court stated that service conditions, as evolved, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status.
“The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 332)
