Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Jaggo – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
The court distinguishes between the Uma Devi case and the present case primarily in the context of irregular versus illegal appointments and the circumstances under which regularization is warranted. The court emphasizes that the principles laid down in Uma Devi are not intended to penalize employees who have rendered long, continuous, and essential service in a manner that aligns with sanctioned or ongoing functions of the organization. Instead, the court clarifies that when appointments were not illegal but irregular, and employees have served continuously in roles that are indispensable and integral to the functioning of the organization, a fair and humane approach to regularization is necessary. The court highlights that the focus should be on the reality of employment—such as long-term, uninterrupted service and the nature of duties—rather than merely on the formal labels or initial appointment terms, which was a key aspect in the Uma Devi judgment. The court further notes that the principles of fairness and equity require considering the actual contribution and the essential nature of the work performed, especially when there has been no mala fide or illegal intent in the appointment process.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 08.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 2018, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and confirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi1[Hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”] dated 17.04.2018 whereby it dismissed the original application of the appellants seeking regularization of their services.
3. The appellants before this Court, who were applicants before the Tribunal originally numbered five. However, the fourth applicant before the Tribunal has not approached this Court. Therefore, these appeals are instituted by Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 only. The sole Appellant in SLP(C) No. 5580/2024 was applicant no. 2 before the Tribunal whereas the Appellant no. 1, 2 and 3 in SLP(C) No. 11086/ 2024 were Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 respectively before the Tribunal. For ease of reference and to maintain consistency, they shall continue to be referred to by their original applicant numbers as before the Tribunal.
4. The appellants before this Court, being Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 b
(1) Regularisation of temporary employees – Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointme....
Continuous long service in essential roles grants employees the right to regularization despite initial contractual labels, promoting equity in employment practices.
Long-standing service without a formal appointment does not deny employees the right to regularization; discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees violates principles of equity and fair....
Regularization of long-serving daily wage employees is mandated after 10 years of service, acknowledging functional continuity despite initial irregularities, violating constitutional rights otherwis....
Long-term service in essential roles warrants regularization despite procedural irregularities; employment rights must be upheld in fairness.
Regularization of long-serving daily wager employees is justified even under contractual terms, ensuring fair treatment and benefits based on continuous service.
Long-standing service and fulfillment of criteria establish entitlement for regularization under service law, preventing arbitrary denial of rights.
Regularization of employees with irregular appointments who have served for a significant duration is constitutionally mandated when they fulfill essential duties, emphasizing equity and justice in p....
Long-term employees, fulfilling essential duties, are entitled to regularization after 10 years of service despite irregular appointments, emphasizing fairness and preventing exploitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
