Govts Must Not Extract Regular Work From Ad-hoc Workers | Cannot Exploit Them | Must Create Sanctioned Posts For Recurring Jobs : Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered a judgment allowing an appeal and setting aside previous orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Court quashed the refusals of the State Government to sanction posts for ministerial and support staff and directed the regularization of the appellants with retrospective effect. The Court further ordered the creation of supernumerary posts, payment of arrears with interest, recalculation of pension and retiral benefits for retired or deceased employees, and filing of compliance affidavits within a fixed timeframe. The decision directed that the long-standing engagement of the appellants in continuous duties must be recognized through sanctioned posts and lawful employment practices.
The appeal originated from the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellants had been engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served as Class-IV employees performing duties of peons and attendants, while Appellant No. 6 was engaged as a Driver under Class-III. Initially appointed as daily wagers, they later received consolidated monthly sums, specifically Rs. 1,500 for Class-IV and Rs. 2,000 for the Driver, from 8 April 1997 onwards. Their duties included scrutiny of applications, dispatch, ministerial support functions, and driving, all performed during regular office hours.
On 24 October 1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV categories and submitted a request for sanction to the State Government. The State Government, by letter dated 27 December 1997, sought details of daily-wage workers and their service particulars. On 11 February 1998, the Commission responded with a list of fourteen daily wagers, which included the appellants.
Subsequently, on 16 October 1999, the Commission reiterated its request for sanction of two Driver posts and ten posts for Peon, Mali, and Chowkidar. The Commission referred to administrative exigencies and enclosed earlier correspondence. However, by order dated 11 November 1999, the State rejected the proposal, citing financial constraints.
The appellants challenged this refusal through Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the High Court. The relief sought included quashing the State’s order dated 11 November 1999, a mandamus directing sanction and creation of fourteen posts for the Commission, regularization of the appellants against those posts with regular pay, and consequential directions relating to salary.
On 24 April 2002, the High Court directed the Commission to submit a fresh recommendation for sanction of appropriate Group-C and Group-D posts. The Court also directed the State to reconsider the issue and, in the meantime, ordered the Commission to pay the appellants minimum wages as per applicable pay scales.
In compliance, a fresh recommendation was submitted. However, by letter dated 25 November 2003, the State again declined sanction on grounds of financial crisis and a ban on creation of new posts.
On 19 May 2009, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that there were no rules for regularization in the Commission and even if the 1998 Regularization Rules were applicable, there were no vacancies to accommodate the appellants. The Court further held that regularization was barred by the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others (2006) 4 SCC 1. The judgment also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the subsequent refusal dated 25 November 2003.
The appellants preferred Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by order dated 8 February 2017, affirming that the appellants were daily wagers, that there were no rules for regularization, and that no vacancies existed. Consequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court framed the primary issue as whether the High Court erred in treating the matter solely as a plea for regularization and failing to adjudicate the appellants’ challenge to the State’s refusals to sanction posts. The Court also considered whether, in light of the appellants’ long and undisputed service, appropriate relief should be granted.
The Court recorded: “When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity.” It clarified that the case was not about rewarding irregular employment but about whether years of ad hoc engagement could be used to deny rights to workers who had kept public institutions running.
The Court noted that the writ petition had expressly challenged the State’s refusal dated 11 November 1999 and sought a mandamus for creation of posts. The Single Judge and Division Bench, however, treated the matter as a bare plea for regularization and disposed of it primarily based on the absence of rules and vacancies. The Court stated: “In doing so, the Courts below failed to adjudicate the principal challenge to the State’s refusal and the legality of its reasons. In our opinion, such non-consideration amounts to a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to exercise jurisdiction.”
With respect to the State’s refusals, the Court held: “Neither decision engages with relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the Commission’s 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous deployment of these very hands for years, and the existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial rather than sporadic.” The Court further stated that refusal to sanction posts could not be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness, and a generic plea of financial constraints ignoring functional necessity did not meet the required standard of reasonableness.
The Court recorded that the nature of the work performed by the appellants, such as sorting applications, dispatch, office support, and driving, was continuous and integral to the Commission’s functioning. The Court stated: “To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained.”
The Court observed that the claim of absence of vacancies was contradicted by an RTI response dated 22 January 2010, which indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. It further noted that the appellants, in an application before the Supreme Court, had identified vacant posts and instances of similarly situated daily wagers being regularized earlier within the same Commission. The Court stated: “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.”
On the High Court’s reliance on Umadevi, the Court clarified: “Unlike Umadevi, the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce.” The Court noted that recent judgments such as Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826) and Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221) cautioned that Umadevi cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ad hocism.
Referring to outsourcing practices, the Court stated: “Outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial.” The Court also observed: “Supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime.”
The Court criticized the High Court’s approach of dismissing the case on technicalities, stating: “The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about ‘rules’ and ‘vacancy’ while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.”
The Court concluded: “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.” It further observed that financial stringency could not override fairness, reason, and the duty to organize work on lawful lines.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the State’s refusals dated 11 November 1999 and 25 November 2003. The Court directed that all appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24 April 2002, the date when the High Court had directed reconsideration. The Court ordered the State and the successor establishment, namely, the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, to create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres for Class-III and Class-IV positions without preconditions.
It was directed that upon 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. They would also be entitled to subsequent increments as per pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service would count from the date of regularization.
The Court ordered payment of arrears as the difference between pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the pay-level and the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24 April 2002 until regularization, retirement, or death, as the case may be. The Court directed that arrears be released within three months, failing which unpaid amounts would carry compound interest at 6% per annum.
For retired appellants, the Court directed grant of regularization from 24 April 2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears, and recalculation of pension, gratuity, and other terminal dues, payable within three months. For deceased appellants, legal representatives were directed to be paid arrears and terminal dues within three months.
The Court further directed that the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, shall file a compliance affidavit within four months.
The Court noted that these directions were framed comprehensively because judicial orders in similar cases had often faced prolonged administrative delay. The Court concluded that justice required imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. It observed that delay in compliance would constitute a conscious denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity.
Case Title: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 998
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
