Govts Must Not Extract Regular Work From Ad-hoc Workers; Must Create Sanctioned Posts For Recurring Jobs : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 19) set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision that had denied regularization of long-serving ad-hoc employees who performed perennial nature of work at the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, solely on the ground that they were initially appointed as daily wagers and no sanctioned posts were available.
The appellants'- five Class-IV employees and a Driver- had been continuously working with the Commission since 1989–1992. Despite decades of service, their demand for regularization was rejected by the State, citing “financial constraints” and a ban on the creation of new posts. The High Court's decision affirming the State's decision led to the filing of the instant appeal before the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, and placing reliance on recent cases of Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reiterated that the plea of employee being outsourced cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism".
State cannot exploit ad-hoc workers for regular work
In the judgment, the Court also made important observations highlighting the responsibility of the State to create sanctioned posts to discharge regular and recurring work. Perennial work cannot be extracted from temporary workers and they cannot be exploited through ad-hoc arrangements.
"We think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices.
The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason, and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.”, the Court said.
"Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running."
Selective regularisation not permissible
Further, upon noting that the Appellants were discriminated, as similarly situated employees were regularized on the vacant posts, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed:
“Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.”
“As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the Court added.
Resultantly, the Court directed immediate regularization of the appellants with effect from 2002, along with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits. Further, it ordered that where posts are unavailable, supernumerary posts shall be created.
"All appellants shall stand regularized with effect, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.", the court ordered.
Cause Title: DHARAM SINGH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818
Click here to read/download the judgment
Advocates Rajesh G Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, appeared for the appellants