Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil K. Chopra, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Mr. Chintan Nirala, Adv. Ms. Saumitra Anand, Adv. Mr. Ankur Azad, Adv. Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Faiz Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Shrey Bhushan, Adv. Mr. P Ashok, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. S. D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Shweta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv. Ms. Meenu Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.

Key Points from the Judgment

• 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. (!) (!) (!) (!)