Supreme Court’s decision on benefits of regularisation policy to be equally granted to all eligible Employees

Introduction

In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22nd July 2024, a 2-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that though the daily-wage employees do not have a vested legal right to seek mandatory regularisation, the benefits of any positive policy decision for regularisation which is taken by the competent authority ought to be extended to all the eligible individuals. While upholding the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which directed the appointment of the daily wage labourers in the Government Kalaniketan Polytechnic College, Jabalpur as a regular employee, it was noted by the court that his junior employees had already been regularised but he was unable to obtain the benefits of regularisation even though the recommendation of the screening committee had already been given.

Court’s Analysis

The bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant while adjudication of the issue observed that even though it is true that the employee who is engaged on daily wage basis does not possess any vested right for seeking regularisation of his services. However, in case there is an already existent competent authority to take a policy decision which is within the permissible policy framework, the benefits of the policy ought to be extended to all those individuals who fall within the broad paradigms of such policy. Therefore, the authority cannot be permitted to apply its discretion and pick and choose only those whom it willingly wants to regularise, leading to unfair discrimination between the employees and violating the rule of law.

In the present case, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the state in order to assail the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had observed that the Respondent No. 1 which was an employee entitled to similar benefit and treatment of regularisation was deprived of the benefit even though it was given to those who were similarly situated and engaged subsequent to respondent no. 1. The Respondent1 was initially engaged in the Collectorate in the year 1991 and was on the post of a daily rated employee but after a period of four years, his services were terminated in the year 1995. After approaching the screening committee set up by the authorities which gave its recommendations in favour of the Respondent, his services were reinstated in the year 2006. Therefore the legal issue which arose out of the situation was whether the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee owing to the view that the Government’s Policy/Circular and the considerably long duration of his service rendered by him as a daily – wage employee.

According to the Hon’ble High Court’s opinion, it was held that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to regularisation of his service due to the fact that several of his junior employees had already been absorbed as a regular employee. Additionally, the appeal preferred by the State was also turned down by the Division Bench of the High Court after considering the facts and recording its reasons in the impugned order. Additionally, even the Supreme Court after perusing the evidence and considering the evidence available on the file records which were submitted by the Petitioner – state, noted that the documentary evidence or the affidavits were completely vague and baseless and were meant to mislead the court and evade their responsibility.

The Apex Court further noted that the material fact that the Respondent had worked for a considerably long period of time as a daily wage employee and his service record from the year 2005 to 2009 is not in dispute. Additionally, his eligibility for the post being considered is also not a question of controversy and the fact that the process of his entry into the employment was totally within the conformity of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore does not pose a serious question as to his regularization. In light of these above facts, there did not exist any reason for interfering with the impugned order that was passed by the High Court in light of the evidence and documentary records that directed the petitioner state to confer regularisation of the Respondent as a government employee.

Conclusion

While dismissing the present petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rightly directed the state to grant all the benefits available to regular employees which include arrears of pending payments and seniority which was due from the cutoff date of his regularisation. Additionally, the court has also answered the substantive question of law by laying down a landmark precedent that the benefits of regularisation must be made available to all eligible employees equally without discriminating them unfairly and ensuring that equality of status and treatment is given to employees across the departments.

In the present case, the courts have also acted on the basis of equity, justice and fairness while treating the rights of employees and laying down the guidelines for equitable and fair regularisation of daily – wage employees.