Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water Commission-CWC on parttime, ad-hoc terms for essential housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the appellants not engaged on "regular vacancies” and their case did not attract the principles enabling regularization – Thereafter, the services of appellants abruptly terminated without issuance of any notice – Appellants filed writ petition – High Court dismissed the same – Correctness: Held: Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual – Essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route – Engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts – Nature of the work performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices – Termination letters issued without prior notice violated fundamental principles of natural justice – Issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite stay order from the tribunal, revealed lack of bona fide intentions – Appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization – Also, the nature of duties the appellants performed does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisite – Appellants' roles were essential and indistinguishable from those of regular employees – Where appointments not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount – Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization – Pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security – Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear greater responsibility to avoid the exploitative employment practices – Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when the roles are integral to the organization's functioning, contravenes international labour standards, exposes the organization to legal challenges, and undermines employee morale – By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody – Thus, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal set aside and termination orders quashed – Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 10-28]
Service law – Regularization of services – Judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi’s case – Clarification: Held: Decision in Uma Devi’s case does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities – While the judgment in Uma Devi’s case sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees – This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments – It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure – However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities – Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi’s case to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate – This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. [Paras 20, 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.