The Supreme Court recently ruled that the State cannot cite financial constraints to deny regularisation of temporary workers engaged for decades on a daily-wage basis. [Dharam Singh vs State of UP]
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary label corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution.
“The State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines,” the judgment said.
The Court underscored that governments, as constitutional employers, must be held to a higher standard when it comes to their employment practices.
The bench made these observations while setting aside orders of the Allahabad High Court that had upheld the State government’s refusal to sanction posts in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Commission).
The case arose out of petitions by Class-III and Class-IV workers who had been engaged between 1989 and 1992 and remained on temporary rolls despite continuous service for more than three decades.
On examining the records, the Bench quashed the State’s refusal of November 1999 and November 2003 to sanction permanent posts.
It held that the refusal did not take into account the Commission’s repeated resolutions, the continuous reliance on the same workers, or the nature of work that was clearly perennial.
The Court underlined that the practice of long-term ad-hoc employment was a direct outcome of administrative opacity and the State has to explain with evidence why ad-hoc employment was being preferred over sanctioned posts when work is perennial in nature.
“Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that ‘ad-hocism’ thrives where administration is opaque. 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," the Court said.
If financial constraint is invoked as a ground, records should show what alternatives were considered.
"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. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running,” the Court made it clear.
In view of the above, it directed that the appellants be regularised with effect from April 24, 2002, the date on which the High Court had first directed reconsideration of the State’s decision.
To implement this, the State and the successor body, the UP Education Services Selection Commission, were ordered to create supernumerary posts.
The Bench further directed that arrears be paid for the period from April 24, 2002, with adjustments for amounts already received.
Default would attract compound interest at six per cent, the Court said.
Further, retired employees are to have their pensions and terminal dues recalculated and in case of deceased appellants, legal representatives are to receive arrears and benefits.
A compliance affidavit has to be filed by the State within four months.
The appellants were represented by Advocates Anil K Chopra, Sriram Parakkat, Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Shashwat Anand, Chintan Nirala, Saumitra Anand, Ankur Azad, Shashank Tiwari, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan and P Ashok.
Advocates Samar Vijay Singh assisted by Amit Ojha, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, SD Singh, Bharti Tyagi, Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh, Meenu Singh and Siddharth Singh appeared for State of UP.
[Read Judgment]