The Supreme Court directed the regularization of six long-serving daily-wage employees of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, holding that the State’s refusal to sanction posts on financial grounds was arbitrary and unsustainable.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the appellants employed between 1989 and 1992 as peons/attendants and a driver had continuously performed perennial duties essential to the Commission’s functioning. Despite repeated resolutions by the Commission seeking sanction of posts, the State rejected the proposals in 1999 and 2003 citing “financial constraints.” The Allahabad High Court had dismissed the employees’ writ petition and special appeal, relying on the absence of vacancies and rules for regularization, and invoking State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The Supreme Court held that both the Single Judge and Division Bench erred by treating the matter as a simple plea for regularization rather than adjudicating the legality of the State’s refusals. It ruled that financial constraints could not override fairness and constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 16, and 21, especially when identical posts had earlier been regularized for similarly placed workers. The Court clarified that Umadevi does not justify indefinite ad hocism where work is permanent and the State relies for decades on daily wagers.
Key Directions Issued:
• All appellants to be regularized with effect from April 24, 2002 (the date of High Court’s earlier direction), through creation of supernumerary posts in Class-III and Class-IV cadres.
• Payment of arrears covering the difference between daily-wage/consolidated pay and regular scale pay with increments from April 2002, to be disbursed within three months, failing which interest at 6% p.a. would apply.
• Retired appellants to receive revised pension and terminal dues; legal representatives of deceased appellants to receive arrears and retiral benefits.
• Compliance affidavit to be filed within four months by the State/Successor Commission.
Appearances:
Appellants: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rishi Kumar, AOR
Respondents: Mr. Anuj Saxena, Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dubey, AOR; Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate; Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocate
