2025 Supreme(SC) 2093

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Ratnank Mishra & Others - Appellants
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022
With
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2022
With
Ajay Kumar Mishra & Others - Appellants
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2022
And
Dharmendra Singh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation – Ordinarily, regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions of employer and courts must exercise restraint in issuing directions – However, in case of undue discrimination, Court must intervene.

Headnote:

Service Law – Regularisation – Discrimination – [Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 – Rules 8 (a)(i), 41 and 45; Article 142 of Constitution of India] – Ordinarily, regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions of employer and courts must exercise restraint in issuing directions – However, present case is exceptional – Appellants have rendered over a decade of service – Numerous similarly placed employees who were employed through same channel of appointment have been regularized – With a view to render complete justice in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, this is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to issue final operative directions – Artificial distinction drawn between Appellants and other similarly situated employees is discrimination which must be weeded out in pursuit of justice – Appellants have been caused grave prejudice by Respondents, in respect of rejection of their representations for regularization, though similarly placed employees have been granted the same, without there being any reasonable distinction between them – Appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were working at the time of their discontinuance – Respondent shall regularize service of Appellants after one year from their respective dates of appointment – During the period in which Appellants remained out of service, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments, retiral benefits (if applicable), etc., except for salary for the period that they have not worked. (Paras 30, 32 to 36)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals call into question correctness of judgments dated 14.10.2015 [In Special Appeal No. 411 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 412 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 410 of 2015] and 30.10.2015 [In Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014] rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of Single Judge dated 31.08.2015 [In Service Single No. 5512 of 2013; Service Single No. 5287 of 2013; Service Single No. 5288 of 2013] and setting aside judgment dated 31.10.2014 [In Writ – A No. 55500 of 2013], respectively. The controversy arises because of non-regularization or non-confirmation employees (“Appellants”) on post of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks by Respondent-High Court of Allahabad, despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized from time to time.

The controversy in present case is that while numerous similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been regularized from time to time, the Appellants contend that they were singled out without there being any reasonable justification and denied regularization.

Findings of Court:

Directions and observations made in present judgment are limited to facts and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner or form be treated as a precedent.

Result : Appeals allowed with directions.