The court established that employees with irregular but not illegal appointments, who have served continuously for over ten years, are entitled to regularization and associated benefits, emphasizing fairness in public employment.

Judgment :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Caught in a state of prolonged uncertainty of their employment, petitioners before this Court are seeking protection of their rights. Despite performing duties equivalent to those of their regularly appointed counterparts, they continue to be denied equality. Trapped between the aspiration for regularization of job and working without any break for years together (10-30 years) on inadequate pay, they are neither in a position to resign for alternative employment nor to endure continued exploitation. They thus yearn for pay parity with their counterparts, who perform similar tasks. Primary reason of discrimination and financial hardship is the irregular mode of their recruitment, which, though not illegal, has led to their current plight. The existential insecurity they face is aptly captured by the timeless lyrics of the song titled “Blowing in the wind”, [Bob Dylan] i.e.

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

These lines mirror the despair, frustration, and helplessness that permeate the lives of the petitioners. The current situation—whether arising from administrative apathy, oversight, or exigency — is a crisis of the State's own making.

1.1. The specter of the Uma Devi judgment continues to haunt, as the State grapples with it. Whether due to circumstance, chance, or oversight, the stark reality remains that a solution must be found to alleviate the hardships and harsh treatment meted out to the petitioners, who are not blameworthy. The Uma Devi judgment has become a double-edged weapon, as both sides rely upon the same. While the respondents (employer) are invoking it as a shield to defend their actions, the petitioners (employees) are wielding it as a sword, arguing that the respondents are distorting the true spirit, intent, and purpose of the Supreme Court's ruling. The unsavoury situation is self created by the State, whether unwittingly or fortuitously or by circumstances beyond control, as the case may be. The imperatives of constitutional morality warrant that appointments irregular in form but not in substance—backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service—must not anymore remain at the mercy of procedural rigidity. For a solution to remedy the hardships treatment meted out to the petitioners for no fault of theirs, steps are required to restore the rule of law, ensure equity, and vindicate the legitimate expectations of those who have served the State in good faith.

1.2. The pivotal question that arises is whether this Court, within its writ jurisdiction, can direct the State to frame appropriate criteria for assessing eligibility, and thereafter regularize the petitioners' services without compelling them to undergo a fresh selection process?

1.3. In exercising its constitutional duty to uphold fairness in public employment and to remedy the administrative injustice, this Court most certainly cannot remain a passive observer. Guided by binding judicial precedents, service jurisprudence, and constitutional morality, let us delve into the specifics in the succeeding part here in after.

FACTS:

2. Petitioners were appointed/employed on various posts, many of them as far back as in the year 1979 (SBCWP No.14903/2027). They are continuing in service since then. However, their services have not been regularized. Hence they seek directions to the respondents to regularize their services and grant consequential benefits.

2.1. Following tables show their initial dates of appointments and respective posts:-

Table-(1) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on 19.02.2025)