1. Temporary employees appointed via selection process to ex-cadre posts seeking regularization after continuous service exceeding twenty-five years. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22241-42 of 2016)
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Important Points
The evolution of employment conditions over time, continuous service, and selection processes mirroring regular recruitment can warrant reclassification from temporary to regular status, emphasizing equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.
Subject
Employment Law - Regularization of Employment
Headnote
Regularization - Employment Rights - [Railway Employees' Service Rules, 1966, Railway Servants (Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties) Rules, 1985] - The court discussed the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into permanent posts, emphasizing the evolution of their employment conditions over time, their continuous service, and the selection process mirroring regular recruitment. The court held that the appellants' service conditions warranted reclassification from temporary to regular status, emphasizing equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a selection process. Despite being appointed for a temporary engagement, they have been continuously working in these positions for over 25 years. Their plea for regularization was negated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' continuous service in capacities similar to regular employees, their promotion process, and the absence of reaffirmation of the temporary nature of their roles warranted a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The court held that the High Court erred in applying the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to the appellants' situation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants' continuous service and the evolution of their employment conditions warranted reclassification from temporary to regular status, despite their initial temporary engagement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be determined solely by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The court also highlighted the distinction between 'irregular' and 'illegal' appointments and the importance of considering certain appointments made in accordance with regular appointment procedures.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellants were entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents were directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of the judgment.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content, and I will generate the key points with the appropriate references as specified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajayveer Singh, Adv. Ms. Divya Garg, Adv. Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Adv. Mr. Shubham Tomar, Adv. Ms. Deepika Jain, Adv. Mr. Atit Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Jain, Adv. Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwaran, Adv. Mrs. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajayveer Singh, Adv. Ms. Divya Garg, Adv. Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Adv. Mr. Shubham Tomar, Adv. Ms. Deepika Jain, Adv. Mr. Atit Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Jain, Adv. Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwaran, Adv. Mrs. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend that substantive duties, selection process, and promotion by a Departmental Promotional Committee entitle them to regularization, distinguishing their case from back-door entries. (Para 4 )
3. Employment status should be determined by the actual nature of duties and continuous service rather than initial terms, especially where recruitment mirrored regular processes. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
4. Irregular appointments of qualified persons in sanctioned posts for over ten years, made through selection processes, warrant regularization as distinguished from illegal back-door entries. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondents directed to consider appellants for regularization within three months. (Para 9 )
6. When can temporary employees be considered for regularization despite initial appointment terms?
When the actual course of employment evolves significantly, duties become indistinguishable from permanent posts, and the selection process mirrors regular recruitment, the employment status may be reclassified to regular status. (Para 5 , 8 )
7. How does the court distinguish between irregular and illegal appointments for the purpose of regularization?
Illegal appointments are back-door entries, whereas irregular appointments involve qualified persons in sanctioned posts who followed regular procedures such as written examinations and interviews, making them eligible for regularization as a one-time measure. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Does the prohibition on regularizing temporary employees apply to those appointed through a formal selection process?
No; the prohibition against regularizing temporary or casual employees does not apply where the appointment was not a back-door entry but involved a formal selection process and long-term continuous service. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
3. Pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991, the appellants were initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews. After the rejection of their representation for regularization to the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2001 dismissed the applications of the appellants, concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization or absorption into permanent posts. Thereafter, the appellants approached the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed their Writ Petitions observing that the appellants' employment under a temporary scheme could not confer upon them the rights akin to those held by permanent employees and relied upon the judgement of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, which held that temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.
4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notif
