Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers In Same Establishment Violates Equity : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the selective regularization of similarly situated employees. It held that daily wage employees engaged in perennial work cannot be discriminated against by denying them regularization while extending the benefit to other similarly situated workers on vacant posts.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the appellants- five Class-IV employees and a Driver- had been continuously working with the Respondent-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; however, other similarly situated employees were regularized on the vacant posts.

The High Court's decision affirming the State's decision led to the filing of the instant appeal before the Supreme Court.

Further, upon noting that the Appellants were discriminated against, 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.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: DHARAM SINGH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From Judgment: Govts Must Not Extract Regular Work From Ad-hoc Workers; Must Create Sanctioned Posts For Recurring Jobs : Supreme Court