2026 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Bhola Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 657 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 30762 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No. 658 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 28352 of 2024), Civil Appeal No. 659 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 3430 of 2025)
Decided On : 30-01-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – Appellant must demonstrate existence of exceptional and special circumstances warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution.
(2) Regularization – Fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution are incapable of waiver – Courts are empowered to invalidate unconscionable elements of a contract where parties lack ability to exercise any real or meaningful choice in negotiating its terms – State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.
(3) Regularization – Legitimate Expectation of employees – Bar against invocation of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with extant rules – Part-time employees constitute an integral part of edifice upon which machinery of State continues to function – They are not merely ancillary to system, but form essential components thereof.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Article 136 of Constitution confers upon this Court a plenary and discretionary power to entertain appeals against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal within territory of India – Only limitation on this power is contained in Article 136(2), which excludes decisions of Tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to Armed Forces – This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution, is competent to interfere with concurrent findings of High Court where such findings are shown to be perverse, rendered in violation of Principles of Natural Justice or in disregard of statutory provisions, or where operation of impugned judgment would result in substantial and grave injustice – Appellant must demonstrate existence of exceptional and special circumstances warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution, failing which, interference would be declined unless non-interference is likely to result in substantial or grave injustice. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2)

(B) Service Law – Regularization – Respondent-State has engaged services of appellants for a period exceeding 10 years – Upon completion of this long tenure, respondents declined to grant any further extension on the ground that engagement was contractual in nature – Such a decision necessarily warrants examination on touchstone of equality principles enshrined in Constitution, which obligate State to act as a model employer and to take decisions free from arbitrariness – State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in discharge of its functions – A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity – State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position – State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced. (Paras 9.3, 11.1 and 11.2)

(C) Service Law – Regularization – Appellants were appointed by respondent-State against sanctioned posts of Junior Engineers (Agriculture), with engagement being described from inception as contractual in nature – Respondent-State accordingly granted extensions to appellants from time to time until year 2023 – Fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution are incapable of waiver – If action of respondent-State is found to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution, mere fact that appellants’ engagement was governed by contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights – Courts are empowered to invalidate unconscionable elements of a contract where parties lack ability to exercise any real or meaningful choice in negotiating its terms – In present case, appellants were left with no alternative but to accept conditions unilaterally prescribed by respondent-State in order to secure their livelihood and sustain a source of income – Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to act to safeguard those who are vulnerable to exploitation, so that employees are not compelled to meekly submit to demands of a vastly dominant contracting party like State, but are instead assured that constitutional protections will intervene to prevent such exploitation. (Paras 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 12.1 and 12.3)

(D) Service Law – Regularization – Legitimate Expectation of employees – Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service – Bar against invocation of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with extant rules – Part-time employees constitute an integral part of edifice upon which machinery of State continues to function – They are not merely ancillary to system, but form essential components thereof – State, having availed of appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses – Respondent-State directed to forthwith regularize services of all appellants against sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed – Appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from date of this Judgment. (Paras 13, 13.1, 13.9, 13.10 and 14)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against the judgments dated 17th September, 2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 390 of 2024, 356 of 2024 and 368 of 2024, respectively, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the intra-Court appeals preferred by the appellant- employees and, in consequence, affirmed the common judgment dated 14th May, 2024, passed by Single Judge dismissing the three writ petitions (supra table) filed by appellants.

Following issues arise for consideration: -

I. Whether judgments passed by High Court warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India?

II. Whether action/inaction of respondent-State in not recognizing appellants’ continuous service for the purpose of regularization is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India?

Findings of Court:

State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as appellants, constitute an integral part of edifice upon which the machinery of State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

Result : Appeals disposed of and Writ Petitions allowed.