1. Employment of daily wagers and contractual staff — Grant of temporary status — Refusal of regularization — Termination of services — Challenge against termination and seeking regularization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 18510 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6183 of 2015)
Decided On : 13-11-2017
Important Points
The main legal point established is that employees with irregular appointments may be entitled to regularization if they have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, as per the principles laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) and related cases.
Subject
Employment Law - Regularization of Services
Act Referred
Headnote
Regularization - Employment - Uma Devi (Supra) - State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 - Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were initially engaged on daily-wage basis, later appointed on contractual basis, and subsequently conferred temporary employees status. Their services were terminated, and they approached the court seeking regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' appointments were not illegal but irregular, and they were entitled to regularization as per the principles established in Uma Devi (Supra) and related cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to regularization despite their irregular appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants' services should be regularized as they had completed 10 years of service and were conferred temporary status with retrospective effect, in line with the principles laid down in Uma Devi (Supra).
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order terminating the services were quashed, and the appellants' appeal was allowed. Their services were directed to be regularized from the date of temporary status, and consequential benefits were to be paid within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Kant, Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanjay Goel
For the Respondents: Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mr. Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Kant, Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanjay Goel
For the Respondents: Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mr. Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim irregular appointment and entitlement to regularization — Respondents contend illegal appointment, lack of available posts, and violation of reservation policy. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Misapplication of legal precedents to maintain exploitative contractual employment — Grant of temporary status implies availability of posts and necessity of work. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Irregular appointments of qualified persons in sanctioned posts for over ten years are eligible for one-time regularization if not a back-door entry. (Para 10 )
5. Termination order and High Court judgment quashed — Services regularized retrospectively with consequential benefits and arrears of pay. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What is the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments regarding regularization?
Illegal appointments cannot be regularized. However, irregular appointments of qualified persons in sanctioned posts who have worked for ten years or more may be regularized as a one-time measure, provided there was no back-door entry. (Para 4 , 10 )
7. Does the grant of temporary status imply the availability of sanctioned posts?
Yes, when an employer confers temporary status upon employees, it demonstrates that there was a requirement for work and that posts were available at that time. (Para 9 )
8. How has the court viewed the systemic use of contractual employment by State Governments?
The court found that State Governments often misuse legal precedents to maintain exploitative contractual or daily-wage employment, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying workers livelihood security and retiral benefits. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellants were initially engaged on daily-wage basis in the month of August, 1993. Later on, they were appointed on contractual basis in the year 1996. In the year 2000, Respondent No.3 issued an order appointing them as regular employees on the minimum pay scale. By way of an order dated 25.7.2006, they were conferred the status of temporary employees with retrospective effect from 1.10.2002. There was a direction issued by the High Court to consider them for regularization, but their services were not regularized. Learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petition seeking regularisation. That order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. In the year 2014, the services of the appellants were terminated. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court vide order dated 27.10.2014, while dealing with the case of the appellants for regularization, that their appointments were illegal and not irregular one. This Court, while entertaining the special leave petition, on 23.3.2015 passed the following order:
“Issue notice.
It appears prima facie, that the petitioners had approached the High Court with a plea for regularization of services. Even this plea has not found favour in the impugned order. However, acting on this order dismissing the writ petition the respondents have decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. There is no casual connection between the two. However, it is the common case that the petitioners are not working for the last four months. We put the respondents to caution that if this Court does not uphold the impugned judgment the natural consequences will be that the petitioners will be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Therefore, it would be prudent for the respondents to carry on the services of the petitioners. It also appears that there is no back door employment or entry of the petitioners so as to dis-entitle them from what is envisaged in paragraph 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.
If the respondents permit the petitioners to return to their services, this will be without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights in the present proceedings.”
It was observed by this Court that there was no back door employment or entry of the appellants in service, so as to disentitle them from the benefit of regularization as envisaged in paragraph 53 of decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. Same is extracted hereunder:
“One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507, and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no
