Employment LawContract Labourers are Entitled to be Considered for Regularization and Permanent Employment: Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1533 dated 30.01.2024 decided on the issue of regularization of employment for individuals, who had been appointed temporarily but had served for an extended period.

FACTS

The Appellants were appointed as Accounts Clerks on a temporary basis through a scheme notified on 21.02.1991. Their selection process involved written tests and viva voce interviews, adhering to a formal recruitment process. Since their appointment in 1992, the Appellants have served continuously for over 25 years in roles indistinguishable from regular employees.

They were subjected to promotions overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee, further aligning their employment conditions with regular service. In 1999, the Appellants sought regularization and absorption as permanent employees by submitting a representation to the Divisional Railway Manager (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”), which was rejected. The Appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, via Original Applications, which were dismissed on 21.11.2001, holding that their appointments were temporary and scheme-specific.

The Appellants challenged the Tribunal’s judgment in the High Court of Allahabad through two writ petitions. The High Court dismissed their petitions on 30.03.2016, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that temporary employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.

The Appellants contended that the High Court failed to account for their substantive roles, which had evolved to mirror those of regular employees. They emphasized their prolonged continuous service, regular promotions, and their selection through a transparent process akin to regular recruitment.

ISSUE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Whether the Appellants’ prolonged service, indistinguishable duties from regular employees, and adherence to a regular recruitment process warrant regularization?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

The Appellants contended that their continuous service of over 25 years, coupled with the substantive nature of their duties, warranted their regularization. They argued that despite being initially appointed as temporary employees under a scheme, their roles evolved over time to align with those of regular employees, making their case distinct from typical temporary appointments.

The Appellants highlighted that they were selected through a formal recruitment process involving written tests and viva voce interviews, distinguishing their appointments from the “backdoor entries” criticized in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).

Furthermore, they pointed out that their promotions were conducted through Departmental Promotional Committees, indicating their integration into the regular employment structure. Relying on paragraph 53 of the Umadevi judgment, which provides for the regularization of irregular (but not illegal) appointments, they argued that their case fulfilled the criteria for regularization and that denying them such status violated the principles of equity, fairness, and employment regulations.

The Respondent argued that the Appellants were appointed under a scheme-specific and temporary arrangement, which explicitly barred them from claiming regularization. They maintained that the terms of the Appellants’ initial appointments clearly defined their temporary nature, and these terms were willingly accepted by the Appellants at the time of joining.

The Respondent further relied on the judgment in Umadevi (2006), asserting that it categorically excluded temporary or casual employees from claiming regularization, regardless of the duration of their service. They contended that regularization would violate the constitutional mandate requiring adherence to the prescribed recruitment rules and procedures for public employment. The Respondent emphasized that allowing the Appellants’ claims would undermine the principles set out in Umadevi, which aim to prevent arbitrary and irregular appointments in public service.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Appellants and observed that employment status should not be rigidly determined by the initial terms of appointment, especially when the actual course of employment demonstrates substantial and continuous service akin to regular employees.

The Court clarified that the judgment of Uma Devi distinguished between illegal appointments and irregular appointments. The Appellants’ appointments fell into the latter category, as they were selected through a formal recruitment process, which included written tests and interviews. Unlike the backdoor entries addressed in Uma Devi, the Appellants’ appointments were not in violation of established rules or procedures.

The Court observed that Appellants’ continuous service for over 25 years and their roles indistinguishable from regular employees, coupled with their promotions by a Departmental Promotional Committee, demonstrated the evolution of their employment status beyond its temporary nature. The failure to specify the duration of their temporary engagement or reaffirm its temporary nature over such a long period was deemed inequitable. Denying regularization despite the Appellants’ substantive roles, continuous service, and alignment with regular employment principles violated the principles of equity, fairness, and intent behind employment regulations.

Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the Appellants’ service conditions warranted reclassification from temporary to regular status and directed the Respondent to initiate the process of regularization for the Appellants within three months.

AMLEGALS REMARKS

This judgment reinforces the principle that substantive employment rights cannot be overlooked in cases of prolonged continuous service and roles equivalent to those of regular employees. It is important to implement the principles of equity and fairness in employment law, ensuring that individuals are not denied their rights based on the initial terms of their appointment when their actual service has significantly changed.

Further this decision provides guidance for future cases involving temporary employees seeking regularization, emphasizing the need to consider the substantive nature of their roles and the context of their employment history.

Team AMLEGALS