1. Regularization of employees — Entitlement of 65 employees found — Only 35 regularized due to vacancy constraints — Contempt petition filed by remaining eligible employees. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Raman Kumar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.........of 2023 [SLP (C) No. 7898 of 2020]
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Important Points
Regularizing only a portion of employees found entitled to regularization, while denying others, is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, regardless of the availability of posts, especially when a one-time measure for regularization is conducted.
Subject
Employment Law - Regularization of Services
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Contempt of Court - Regularization of services of employees - The court found that while 65 employees were entitled to regularization, only 35 were regularized, leading to allegations of discrimination. The principle established in Uma Devi case allowed for regularization as a one-time measure for employees with over ten years of service. The court ruled that not regularizing the services of some employees while regularizing others constituted a violation of equality under Article 14. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
(B) Contempt petitions - The High Court erroneously dismissed the contempt petition on the basis of an affidavit stating no posts were available, despite finding entitlement to regularization. The Supreme Court held that the contempt petition should have been entertained. (Paras 4, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, having completed more than ten years of service, alleged that their non-regularization alongside others who were regularized was discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
The classification by the High Court was incorrect; the appellants’ services were to be regularized effective from the same date as the regularization of the others, with all backwages and benefits due to them within six months.
Issues: Whether the non-regularization of certain employees when others were regularized constitutes contempt and discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the discriminatory nature of the selective regularization process and reinforced the need for equality as mandated by Article 14.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Contempt petitions - The High Court erroneously dismissed the contempt petition on the basis of an affidavit stating no posts were available, despite finding entitlement to regularization. The Supreme Court held that the contempt petition should have been entertained. (Paras 4, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, having completed more than ten years of service, alleged that their non-regularization alongside others who were regularized was discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
The classification by the High Court was incorrect; the appellants’ services were to be regularized effective from the same date as the regularization of the others, with all backwages and benefits due to them within six months.
Issues: Whether the non-regularization of certain employees when others were regularized constitutes contempt and discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the discriminatory nature of the selective regularization process and reinforced the need for equality as mandated by Article 14.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Prashant Shukla, Anushree Shukla, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Varun Singh, Alankriti Dwivedi, Arvind Kumar, Ytharth Kumar, Smriti Wadhwa
For the Respondents: Aishwarya Bhati, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Deepabali Dutta, Gargi Khanna, Akshay Nain, B.K. Satija
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Prashant Shukla, Anushree Shukla, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Varun Singh, Alankriti Dwivedi, Arvind Kumar, Ytharth Kumar, Smriti Wadhwa
For the Respondents: Aishwarya Bhati, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Deepabali Dutta, Gargi Khanna, Akshay Nain, B.K. Satija
Table of Contents
2. Respondents contend that regularization is impossible due to non-availability of posts and the abolition of specific employee categories. (Para 9 )
3. Regularizing only a portion of employees found entitled to regularization is discriminatory and violates the right to equality. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. Selective regularization of employees among a group found eligible for regularization is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — Services directed to be regularized with backwages and consequential benefits from the date of regularization of other eligible employees. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Is selective regularization of eligible employees permissible?
No. Regularizing some employees while denying others who are equally entitled to regularization is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. Can the absence of available posts justify the refusal to regularize employees already found entitled to regularization?
No. Once it is determined that a specific number of employees are entitled to be regularized, failing to regularize all of them based on post availability is considered discriminatory. (Para 10 )
8. What is the legal position on one-time regularization for long-term employees?
A one-time measure for regularization is permitted for employees who have completed more than ten years of service, provided backdoor entries are otherwise discouraged. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. This appeal challenges the order passed by the High Court dated 09.12.2019, vide which the High Court has disposed of the contempt petition holding that there is no contempt in view of the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs.) dated 06.12.2019.
4. The matter arises out of regularization of the employees. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in his report dated 14.02.2013 found that, in the exercise conducted in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others , 2006 (4) SCC 1, though 65 employees were found to be entitled for regularization, only 35 employees were regularized. This was done since only 35 vacancies were available.
5. 16 persons out of the remaining 30 employees filed contempt petitions alleging that the respondents/departments are not regularizing the services of the appellants, thereby committing contempt of Court.
6. It appears that, before the High Court, an affidavit was filed stating therein that the services of the appellants could not be regularized since the posts were not available. On this statement the contempt petition has been filed.
7. In the Constitution Bench judgment of this court passed in Uma Devi (supra), though the Court has held that backdoor entries should not be permitted, it has permitted a one time measure to be conducted for regularization of the services of these employees who had completed the service of more than ten years.
8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed service of more than ten years. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition. She submits that since posts were not available, and, thereafter, Group `D' posts have been abolished, the appellants could not have been regularized.
10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents. When the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that 65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees and not regularizing the services of other employees, including the appellants, is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt petition. However, at this stage, relegating the appellants again to the High Court would unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the appellants.
12. We, therefore, allow the appeal.
13. The services of the appellants are directed to be regularized from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized and the backwages and other consequential benefits etc. to which the appellants would be entitled to, shall be paid to them within a period of six months from today.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
