SUPREME COURT RULES FOR REGULARIZATION OF LONG-SERVING DAILY WAGE WORKERS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

SUPREME COURT RULES FOR REGULARIZATION OF LONG-SERVING DAILY WAGE WORKERS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

In an important judgement in the matter of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018), the Supreme Court has reiterated that public institutions cannot indefinitely rely on ad hoc or daily wage workers to perform essential and permanent duties, and that fairness, transparency, and dignity must characterize public employment practices.

The Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath addressed the long-standing grievances of daily wage employees of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission, delivering directions that emphasize the constitutional obligations of the State as an employer.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Appellants were initially engaged between 1989 and 1992 as Class-IV employees (such as peons and attendants), with one serving as a driver (Class-III), all on daily wages. Over time, the Commission’s persistent administrative needs led to their continuous employment, albeit without regularization. Efforts by the Commission to secure sanctioned posts and extend regular pay scales for these workers were repeatedly denied by the State, primarily on the ground of financial constraints and a purported ban on new posts.

Despite repeated proposals and the workers’ undisputed tenure, the State refused to grant sanction both in 1999 and again in 2003 after a judicial directive to reconsider the decision. The affected employees filed writ petitions seeking quashing of these refusals, regularization and protection of their wages. However, both a Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed their claims, relying on the absence of statutory rules for regularization and referring to the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (which restricted regularization of irregular appointments without due process).

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDING

1. Misapplication of Legal Precedents: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erroneously decided the matter solely as a plea for regularization, ignoring the real challenge to the State’s refusal to sanction posts. The decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Orswas held to be inapplicable as the present case involved not illegal appointments, but long-term reliance on workers for ongoing, essential tasks.
2. Arbitrary refusal and perennial need: The Bench emphasized that executive decisions to deny sanctioned posts must be subject to judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. Mere invocation of “financial constraints” does not justify keeping employees on daily wages while their duties remain continuous and integral to the functioning of the institution.
3. Existence of vacancies and unequal treatment: Evidence was presented of existing vacancies and selective regularization of other similarly positioned workers, undermining the State’s claims. The continued employment of the appellants in regular office hours and comparable roles, without the benefits and protections of regular service, amounted to unjust discrimination.
4. Criticism of ad-hoc and outsourcing: The Court underscored that outsourcing cannot be deployed as a device to rationalize perpetual daily-wage status where work is inherently permanent. Structural changes or allegedly new staffing policies do not extinguish accrued rights or justify years of precarious employment.
5. Constitutional Responsibility: Public sector employers must organize their workforce in accordance with Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, and cannot balance budgets by denying basic rights and security to those performing vital functions day in, day out. The judgment called for stricter record-keeping, transparency and fairness in engagement decisions.