2024 Supreme(SC) 1243

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Jaggo – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024)
With
Anita & Ors - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14832 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11086 of 2024)
Decided On : 20-12-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 appointments as part-time or contractual – Essence of their employment must be considered.
(2) Regularisation of temporary employees – Decision in Uma Devi [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1] does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of State or its instrumentalities – Said Judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.
(3) Regularisation of temporary employees – Courts must look beyond surface labels and consider realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Regularisation – Temporary employees – Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual – Essence of their employment must be considered in light of their sustained contribution, integral nature of their work, and fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route – Appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to day-to-day functioning of offices of Central Water Commission – Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades – Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts – Respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during appellants’ tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work – Act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that work in question was neither temporary nor occasional – Abrupt termination of appellants’ services, following dismissal of their Original Application before Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification – Even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished – Appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization – Respondents’ belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be afterthought and lacks credibility. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)

(B) Service Law – Regularisation – Temporary employees – Nature of duties appellants performed, cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening, does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites – It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or performance of their duties for decades – Appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle – Appellants have also established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents – Preferential treatment accorded to some individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification, exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in respondent department’s approach – Such disparity violates principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in Law – Appellants’ sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services – Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified – Impugned orders passed by High Court and Tribunal set aside and termination orders quashed – Appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith – However, appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for said period and same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. (Paras 17, 18 and 28)

(C) Service Law – Regularisation – Decision in Uma Devi [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1] does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of State or its instrumentalities – Said Judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements – However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount – Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization – Courts must look beyond surface labels and consider realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments – In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity – Pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. (Paras 20, 21 and 22)

(D) Service Law – Regularisation – In Private Sector, rise of gig economy has led to increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment – Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards – Government institutions, entrusted with upholding principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices – When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors detrimental trends observed in gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations – Judgment in Uma Devi [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1] categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure – However, laudable intent of Judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities – This selective application distorts Judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades – It is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment – Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. (Paras 26 and 27)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise out of judgment dated 08.08.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 2018, whereby High Court dismissed writ petition filed by appellants and confirmed order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi dated 17.04.2018 whereby it dismissed original application of appellants seeking regularization of their services.

Findings of Court:

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.

Result : Appeals allowed.