Supreme Court Quashes U.P. State’s Refusal To Sanction Posts | Holds Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Violates Equity | Orders Regularisation In Higher Education Services Commission
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that long-serving daily wage employees engaged in perennial duties within public institutions cannot be denied regularisation on grounds of financial constraints or absence of sanctioned posts. The Court quashed the refusals of the State Government to sanction posts and directed that the appellants be regularised with retrospective effect from April 24, 2002. It further ordered the creation of supernumerary posts, payment of arrears with interest, and recalculation of retirement and terminal dues, thereby affirming the obligation of the State as a constitutional employer to organise perennial work on lawful lines.
The litigation originated from the engagement of six individuals by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. Five of them were appointed as Class-IV staff, discharging duties akin to peons and attendants, while one was employed as a driver, categorised under Class-III. Initially, they were compensated on a daily-wage basis. With effect from April 8, 1997, they were placed on consolidated monthly honorariums — ₹1,500 for Class-IV and ₹2,000 for the driver. Despite their designation as daily wagers, their duties consisted of ministerial and support functions that were regular in nature, performed during ordinary office hours, and were integral to the Commission’s functioning.
The Commission, constituted under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, is a statutory body tasked with managing extensive recruitment processes for teachers and principals. To discharge its mandate, it required ministerial and logistical support for administrative processes such as scrutiny of applications, record maintenance, dispatch, and related office tasks. Recognising these requirements, the Commission, on October 24, 1991, resolved to create fourteen posts under Class-III and Class-IV categories. A request was subsequently forwarded to the State Government for sanction.
On December 27, 1997, the State sought details of the daily wage workers employed by the Commission. On February 11, 1998, the Commission duly furnished a list comprising fourteen such workers, which included the appellants. The Commission again reiterated the demand for sanctioning posts through its communication dated October 16, 1999. It specifically sought approval for two driver posts and ten posts under the categories of peon, mali, and chowkidar. The correspondence cited administrative exigencies and referred to earlier proposals. However, by letter dated November 11, 1999, the State rejected the proposal, citing financial constraints.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the workers instituted Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the Allahabad High Court. The reliefs sought included quashing of the State’s order dated November 11, 1999; issuance of a mandamus directing the sanction and creation of fourteen posts in line with the Commission’s resolution; regularisation of their services against those posts with regular pay scales; and consequential orders regarding non-interference with their employment and release of salaries.
On April 24, 2002, the High Court directed the Commission to make a fresh recommendation regarding the sanction of Group-C and Group-D posts and further directed the State to reconsider the matter. Pending this decision, the Court ordered that the appellants be paid at least the minimum of the applicable pay scales, in recognition of their long engagement. The Commission complied by forwarding a fresh recommendation, but by its communication dated November 25, 2003, the State again declined sanction, reiterating grounds of financial strain and citing a ban on creation of new posts.
Subsequently, the writ petition came up for final adjudication before a Single Judge of the High Court. On May 19, 2009, the petition was dismissed. The Court reasoned that there were no rules providing for regularisation in the Commission, and even if the 1998 Regularisation Rules were assumed to apply, there were no vacancies against which the petitioners could be regularised. Furthermore, reliance was placed on the precedent laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others (2006) 4 SCC 1, which restricted regularisation of employees engaged without adherence to constitutional norms of recruitment. The Court also observed that the petitioners had not specifically challenged the State’s subsequent decision dated November 25, 2003.
The petitioners filed Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court. However, on February 8, 2017, the appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench affirmed the reasoning of the Single Judge, holding that the appellants were daily wagers, that there were no rules for regularisation, and that vacancies did not exist for considering them. Consequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018.
The Supreme Court was required to consider whether the High Court had erred in not adjudicating the principal challenge to the State’s refusal to sanction posts and whether, given the appellants’ long service and the continuous nature of their duties, they were entitled to relief. The appellants contended that the High Court had misdirected itself by treating the matter as a simple claim for regularisation, without examining the legality of the State’s refusals dated November 11, 1999 and November 25, 2003. They further argued that the refusals were arbitrary, especially in light of the Commission’s consistent proposals for posts, acknowledged administrative requirements, and the prolonged reliance on their services. They also pointed to the existence of vacancies, as evidenced by an RTI reply dated January 22, 2010, and highlighted instances where similarly placed daily wagers within the same Commission had been regularised.
The respondents, namely the State and the Commission, relied upon financial constraints and administrative policies, including the subsequent merger of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission in 2024. They argued that later policies contemplated outsourcing of Class-IV and driver functions, thereby obviating the need for creating permanent posts.
The Supreme Court recorded that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in not adjudicating the appellants’ primary challenge. “The original writ petition before the High Court expressly assailed the State’s refusal dated 11.11.1999 to sanction posts for the Commission and sought a mandamus for creation of posts with consequential consideration for the appellants. The Single Judge of the High Court, and the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, treated the matter as a bare plea for regularisation, answered it only on the touchstone of absence of rules and vacancy, and rested principally on Umadevi. 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.”
The Court scrutinised the reasons cited by the State for refusing sanction of posts. “The State’s refusal of 11.11.1999 cites ‘financial constraints’ and the subsequent decision of 25.11.2003 adverts to financial crisis and a ban on creation of posts. 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 held: “While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of ‘financial constraints’, ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own long-standing reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.”
The Court noted that the evidence contradicted the assertion of “no vacancies.” It recorded: “An RTI response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the establishment. That application also set out the names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A. The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those who received regularisation materially undermine the High Court’s conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed.”
On the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi, the Supreme Court observed: “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. On the other hand, Umadevi draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order.”
The Bench also referred to its recent decisions, including Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. It stated: “Umadevi cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ‘ad hocism’, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case.”
Addressing subsequent developments, the Court noted: “A later policy to outsource Class-IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades.”
The Court clarified the nature of the State’s duty: “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 Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions. It declared: “The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.”
The Court ordered that all appellants be regularised with effect from April 24, 2002, the date on which the High Court had directed reconsideration. It directed: “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 regularisation, 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 subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade.”
On arrears, the Court directed: “Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularisation/retirement/death, as the case may be. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.”
For retired appellants, it held: “Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularisation with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.”
Regarding deceased appellants, it ordered: “In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.”
The Court further mandated: “The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.”
The Bench held the need for enforceability: “Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. 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.”
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, Justice Sandeep Mehta
