This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot deny regularization of perennial work performed by long-serving ad hoc employees. Arbitrary refusals to sanction posts based on financial constraints violate Articles 14, 16, and 21. The Court mandated the creation of supernumerary posts for regularization, emphasizing that outsourcing cannot justify exploitation or circumvent the duty to provide fair and secure employment.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellants were engaged as daily wage employees (Class-III Driver and Class-IV Peons/Attendants) by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. They performed regular, perennial duties essential to the Commission’s functioning. In 1991, the Commission itself resolved to create fourteen permanent posts and repeatedly sought sanction from the State Government, which was refused in 1999 and again in 2003, citing financial constraints and a ban on new posts. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging these arbitrary refusals and seeking regularization. The High Court dismissed the petition, treating it as a mere plea for regularization without sanctioned posts and relying on the precedent in Umadevi. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by not adjudicating the core challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusal to sanction posts despite acknowledging the perennial nature of the work and its own long-standing reliance on the appellants. Evidence of vacant posts and prior regularization of similarly situated employees within the same establishment was also presented.
Procedural History:
The appellants instituted Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the State’s refusal to sanction posts and seeking regularization. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 19.05.2009, citing a lack of regularization rules and vacancies, and invoked the precedent set in Umadevi. The appellants then preferred a Special Appeal (No. 1245 of 2009), which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 08.02.2017, affirming the Single Judge’s view. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellants filed the present Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 before the Supreme Court of India, which allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the High Court erred by reducing the case to a mere plea for regularization and failing to adjudicate the core challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusal to sanction posts. It held that a generic plea of “financial constraints” cannot justify ignoring perennial functional necessity and decades of reliance on a daily-wage workforce, as such refusal violates the standards of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16. The Court clarified that the precedent in Umadevi is not a shield for the State to justify exploitative long-term ad hoc engagements where the work is permanent. It further condemned the practice of outsourcing perennial functions as a mechanism to circumvent the constitutional duty to provide fair and secure employment, emphasizing the State’s higher obligation as a model employer.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the State Government’s orders refusing to sanction posts. It directed the State and its successor body to regularize all appellants with effect from 24.04.2002 by creating supernumerary posts in their respective cadres. The appellants were to be placed at the minimum of the regular pay scale and paid full arrears of the difference in wages, with interest for any default. Retired and deceased appellants were granted corresponding benefits, recalculated pension, and terminal dues. The Principal Secretary was ordered to file a compliance affidavit within four months, ensuring the judgement was implemented without further administrative delay or technical objections.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 998 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 Date of Judgement: August 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here