In a landmark decision affirming the rights of long-term daily-wage workers, the Supreme Court of India has strongly condemned the continued exploitation of individuals engaged in perennial roles under the guise of temporary or ad-hoc employment. The Court, recognizing the unfair and arbitrary treatment of six such workers employed by the erstwhile U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, has ordered their regularization with retrospective effect and has laid down a framework to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in public employment.
Background of the Case:
The matter traces back to a petition filed by six workers — five Class-IV employees and one driver — who had been employed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992 on a daily-wage basis. Despite their continued service in essential support functions such as dispatch, scrutiny of recruitment applications, and driving, they remained ineligible for regularization. In 1991, the Commission recommended the creation of sanctioned posts, but the State Government repeatedly rejected the proposal citing financial constraints, including in 1999 and again in 2003 after a High Court directive to reconsider.
The workers sought judicial intervention to quash the State’s refusal and demanded regularization against sanctioned posts. Their writ petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, and a subsequent appeal met a similar fate. The High Court, relying heavily on the precedent set in Umadevi v. State of Karnataka, concluded that there were no rules for regularization, and no sanctioned posts existed.
Supreme Court’s Intervention:
On appeal, the Supreme Court took a markedly different view. It held that the High Court erred in treating the case as a mere plea for regularization. Instead, the central issue was the State’s unjustified refusal to create posts despite clear administrative need and consistent reliance on the same individuals for essential work over a span of decades.
The Court criticized the State’s explanation of “financial constraints” as vague and unsubstantiated, particularly in light of the Commission’s repeated resolutions seeking post creation, and the acknowledged recurring nature of the work performed. Emphasizing that refusal to create posts cannot escape judicial scrutiny when it ignores operational necessity and violates principles of equity and fairness, the Court declared such reasoning arbitrary.
The Court also noted the existence of vacancies and prior instances where similarly placed individuals were regularized, thus revealing an element of discriminatory treatment. Importantly, the Court clarified that the doctrine in Umadevi did not prohibit regularization where engagement was not illegal, work was perennial, and the State had failed to institute proper recruitment mechanisms.
Outsourcing Cannot Justify Exploitation:
In its reasoning, the Court drew upon recent precedents — notably Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad — to stress that public institutions cannot use outsourcing or financial excuses as a smokescreen to perpetuate precarious employment. The State’s later reorganization of the Commission in 2024 and its decision to outsource Class-IV and driving functions could not, the Court held, retrospectively justify the long-standing failure to regularize workers who had continuously served the institution.
The judgment went on to criticize the misuse of temporary contracts to circumvent the State’s responsibilities as a constitutional employer, stating that such practices compromise the dignity and security of the workers who fulfill essential public duties.
Constitutional Employer Obligations:
The Court underscored the responsibility of public institutions to organize work and workforce in a manner that aligns with Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment), and 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) of the Constitution. It emphasized that while financial discipline is important, it cannot come at the cost of fairness and the continued exploitation of workers under the façade of temporary status.
Binding Directions of the Court:
To remedy the injustice faced by the appellants, the Court issued the following comprehensive directions:
- Regularization and Post Creation:
The State must create supernumerary posts for the appellants and regularize them effective from April 24, 2002 — the date the High Court had directed a fresh consideration of post creation.
The workers are entitled to the difference between their daily-wage earnings and the minimum of the regular pay scale from 2002 onward, to be paid within three months. Delayed payments will attract 6% compound interest annually.
- Retired and Deceased Workers:
Those who have since retired will receive revised pensions and gratuity based on their newly recognized service. Legal heirs of deceased workers will receive arrears and terminal dues accordingly.
A senior official — either the Principal Secretary or relevant authority of the successor body — must file a compliance affidavit with the Supreme Court within four months.
A Pathway to Dignity and Legal Recognition:
Recognizing the recurring failure of institutions to act even after judicial orders, the Supreme Court’s decision is firm in tone and thorough in remedy. It sends a clear message that public employment cannot be run on a permanent state of "ad-hocism", and temporary labels must not become tools to avoid rightful engagement and fair treatment.
The Court also emphasized the importance of record-keeping, transparency in establishment data, and the need to justify hiring decisions with actual evidence — not blanket invocations of financial difficulty.
Conclusion:
This ruling is not merely a victory for the six appellants but also a broader reaffirmation that justice in public employment must go beyond formality. It must account for the human consequences of prolonged insecurity and uphold the dignity of those who support essential state functions behind the scenes. The Supreme Court has not only granted relief but laid down a clear constitutional framework for how such cases must be handled in the future — with fairness, clarity, and an unwavering commitment to constitutional values.
