Case: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 19 August 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta
Citation: 2025 INSC 998; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that denying regularization to daily wage employees engaged in perennial work while regularizing others in the same establishment amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court directed the immediate regularization of appellants with retrospective effect from 2002, creation of supernumerary posts where necessary, and full financial benefits including arrears, pension recalculations, and compliance affidavits.

Background

• Appellants were engaged between 1989–1992 as Class-IV employees (Peon/Attendant) and one Driver.
• They worked continuously as daily wagers, later on consolidated pay.
• The Commission acknowledged their need and sought post sanction multiple times (1991, 1997, 1999), but the State rejected citing financial constraints and a ban on new posts.
• In 2000, appellants challenged the refusal before the Allahabad High Court.
• Single Judge and Division Bench dismissed the pleas, relying on Umadevi and absence of sanctioned vacancies.
• The matter reached the Supreme Court in appeal.

Key Issues

• State arbitrarily refused to sanction posts despite perennial work.
• Similarly situated daily wagers had been regularized while appellants were denied.
• High Court wrongly treated the case as a simple plea for regularization instead of challenging State’s refusal.

Supreme Court Findings

• State’s Refusal Unsustainable – Non-speaking rejections citing financial strain were arbitrary and unreasonable.
• Perennial Work Established – Continuous duties like dispatch, application scrutiny, and driving proved the work was permanent.
• Vacancies Existed – RTI responses and unrebutted claims showed available Class-III and IV posts.
• Discrimination in Regularization – Selective absorption of others while denying appellants violated equity under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
• Misapplication of Umadevi – The case was about arbitrary refusal, not illegal appointments.
• Outsourcing Cannot Justify Denial – Future outsourcing policies cannot erase accrued rights.
• State as Constitutional Employer – Financial constraints are not a justification to deny fairness and dignity to workers.

Cited Precedents

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – distinguished.
• Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826).
• Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221).

Important Observations

• “Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.”
• “Financial stringency is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason, and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.”
• “Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is constitutional discipline.”

Legal Partners’ Views

This judgment reaffirms that the State, as a model employer, cannot hide behind financial excuses or outsourcing to perpetuate exploitative ad-hocism. The recognition of workers’ rights as constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 16, and 21 sets a strong precedent against precarious employment.

Outcome

• Appellants directed to be regularized from 24.04.2002.
• Supernumerary posts to be created if sanctioned posts unavailable.
• Arrears, continuity of service, pension recalculations, and benefits ordered.
• Compliance affidavit to be filed within 4 months.

Final Thoughts

This ruling will be crucial for thousands of daily wage and ad-hoc employees across India, reinforcing that fairness in employment is a constitutional duty, not an administrative concession. It strengthens workers’ rights against arbitrary State actions and limits the misuse of Umadevi to deny regularization.

SOURCE: LiveLaw