Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dharam Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 8558 of 2018
Decided on : 19-08-2025
(A) Service Law – Regularisation – Daily Wager – Outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where work is inherently perennial – Interim protection that was granted precisely because of long history of engagement and pendency of challenge to State’s refusals, neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of legality of those refusals – Supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings – Successor body steps into shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from prior regime – More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource Class-IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services Establishment relied for decades – High Court was obliged to examine legality of State’s stance in refusing sanction, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality – Division Bench of High Court compounded error by affirming dismissal without engaging with principal challenge or intervening material – Approach of both Courts, in reducing dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring core question of arbitrariness in State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained – Impugned order of High Court quashed – All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, date on which High Court directed a fresh recommendation by Commission and a fresh decision by State on sanctioning posts for appellants. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 19)
(B) Service Law – Regularisation – Where work recurs day after day and year after year, establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices – Long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends promise of equal protection – Financial stringency has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and duty to organise work on lawful lines – “Ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque – 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 work is perennial – If “constraint” is invoked, record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India – Sensitivity to 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. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order, Division Bench of High Court affirmed dismissal of writ petition on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Respondent No.2 herein) for regularization. Court observed that no vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered.
Findings of Court:
As a constitutional employer, State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers.
Result : Appeal allowed with directions.
Core Issue: Regularisation of daily wagers engaged between 1989-1992 as Class-IV employees (Peons/Attendants) and Driver (Class-III) by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, performing perennial ministerial and support functions on daily wage basis, paid consolidated amounts from 1997. (!) (!)
Factual Background: Commission resolved in 1991 to create 14 Class-III/IV posts, sought State sanction; State rejected in 1999 and 2003 citing financial constraints; High Court in 2002 directed fresh recommendation and interim pay at minimum scale; writ petition challenged refusals and sought post sanction/regularisation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court Errors: Single Judge and Division Bench dismissed writ/special appeal treating it as mere regularisation plea, citing no rules/vacancies, without examining arbitrariness of State's refusals to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Nature of Work: Duties (application scrutiny, dispatch, office support, driving) continuous, integral, perennial since engagement; Commission's own proposals and reliance contradict "no vacancy" premise; RTI and IA evidence showed vacancies and prior regularisations of similarly placed workers. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Legality of Refusals: State's rejections (1999/2003) non-speaking, generic "financial constraints" without engaging administrative exigencies, long reliance on workers; arbitrary, amenable to judicial review under equality/reasonableness standards. (!) (!)
Interim Protection: Granted due to long service/pendency; does not create/erase rights but preserves entitlements pending adjudication. (!)
Supervening Changes: 2024 merger into successor body and outsourcing policy for Class-IV/Driver does not extinguish claims, validate prior refusals, or deny consideration; successor inherits liabilities. (!)
Outsourcing Critique: Cannot shield perpetuation of precariousness for perennial work; State must organize sanctioned strength reflecting reality, avoid ad-hocism/exploitation via temporary labels. (!) (!) (!) (!)
State's Obligations: As constitutional employer, must maintain records (registers/muster rolls/outsourcing), explain preferences for precarious engagement with evidence; consider alternatives, equal treatment; financial stringency not override for fairness/Articles 14,16,21 compliance. (!)
Relief Granted: Quash High Court orders/State refusals; all appellants regularized w.e.f. 24.04.2002 (High Court fresh direction date) via supernumerary posts in Class-III/IV; minimum pay-scale with last pay protection/increments; seniority from regularization date. (!) (!) (!)
Financial Directions: Arrears of pay/allowances difference from 24.04.2002, adjustable against interim payments; 3-month payment, else 6% compound interest; retired appellants get pay fixation/pension/terminal recalculation; deceased appellants' LRs get arrears/terminal dues. (!) (!) (!)
Compliance: Principal Secretary/Secretary file affidavit within 4 months; directions comprehensive to prevent delays/technicalities, enforce sanctioned footing/budget for perennial workers. (!) (!)
Broader Principles: Public employment demands fairness, reasoned decisions, dignity; long-term regular labour under temporary labels offends equality; delay in obligations erodes livelihoods/dignity. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009, whereby the Special Appeal preferred by the present appellants against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 was rejected.
3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission1[In short, “the Commission”] (Respondent No.2 herein) for regularization. Moreover, the Court observed that no vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered.
4. The factual backdrop to the present appeal is as follows:
4.1. The appellants were engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served as Class-IV employees (Peon/attendant duties), and Appellant No. 6 served as Driver (Class-III). They were paid as daily wagers and, with effect from 08.04.1997, received consolidated monthly amounts (Rs.1,500 for Class-IV; Rs.2,000 for Driver), while discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. The Commission, established under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, processes large recruitment cycles for teachers and principals and requires ministerial support for scrutiny of applications, dispatch, and connected administrative work.
4.2. On 24.10.1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV and sought sanction from the State Government2[In short, “the State”] On 27.12.1997, the State sought particulars of daily-wage hands and their service details. On 11.02.1998, the Commission furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers which included the present appellants.
4.3. On 16.10.1999, the Commission reiterated its request, seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar, adverted to administrative exigencies, and referred to earlier correspondence. By letter dated 11.11.1999, the State rejected the proposal citing financial constraints.
4.4. Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the High Court praying for
(ii) A mandamus to the State to sanction/create fourteen posts in Class-III/IV for the Commission in terms of the Commission’s resolution and proposals and, thereafter, to regularise the appellants against those posts with regular pay; and
(iii) Consequential non-interference and salary directions.
4.5. On 24.04.2002, the High Court directed the Commission to send a fresh recommendation for sanction of appropriate Group-C/Group-D posts and directed the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In the meantime, having regard to the appellants’ long engagement, the Commission was directed to pay them the minimum of the applicable pay scale.
4.6. Pursuant thereto, a fresh recommendation was sent and by communication dated 25.11.2003, the State declined sanction, again citing financial grounds and a ban on creation of new posts.
4.7. By judgment dated 19.05.2009, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no rules for regularisation in the Commission had been shown and that
Regularisation of Daily Wagers – Outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where work is inherently perennial.
Public employers must regularize long-term workers and ensure their employment rights, reflecting the stability of their roles under constitutional provisions.
Temporary and contractual employees cannot claim regularization based solely on long service without following established recruitment procedures as mandated by the Constitution.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Long-standing service and fulfillment of criteria establish entitlement for regularization under service law, preventing arbitrary denial of rights.
Long continuous service (>10 years) as daily wagers on perennial essential duties entitles regularization consideration despite irregular initial engagement; distinguishes irregular from illegal appo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
