Service Law — Casual Workers in Income Tax Department — Regularization — Parity with Similarly Situated Employees — Discrimination Impermissible
(Paras 6 to 8, 10, 11)
Where daily-wage workers of the Income Tax Department, whose names figured in the same seniority list as other similarly situated employees, were denied regularization despite this Court having earlier directed regularization of co-workers from the very same list, such denial amounts to hostile discrimination. Once the benefit of regularization has been granted to identically placed employees pursuant to judicial orders, the employer cannot selectively refuse similar treatment to others similarly situated. The principle of parity and non-discrimination mandates extension of identical relief.
Regularization — Applicability of Umadevi (3) — Distinction Between “Illegal” and “Irregular” Appointments
(Paras 2, 4, 9, 10)
The Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) does not bar regularization in every case of non-permanent engagement. The judgment distinguishes between illegal appointments and irregular appointments. Where employees were engaged through employment exchange sponsorship, interviewed, and have rendered long years of service in posts of perennial nature, their engagement cannot be treated as illegal. Mechanical reliance on the ten-year cut-off in Umadevi (3), without examining factual parity and the nature of work performed, amounts to misapplication of the law.
Service Jurisprudence — Perennial Nature of Work — Outsourcing — Indicator of Continuing Need
(Para 9)
Where duties performed by casual workers are subsequently outsourced, such outsourcing demonstrates that the work is perennial and essential to the functioning of the department. Replacement of one set of workers by contractual labour does not negate the existence of regular, continuing functions. Courts must examine the substance of employment rather than the nomenclature.
Precedent — Binding Effect of Earlier Directions for Regularization — Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar
(Paras 6 to 8, 11)
In Ravi Verma v. Union of India, this Court directed regularization of daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department whose names appeared in the same departmental list. Subsequently, in Raman Kumar v. Union of India, identical relief was granted on the ground of parity. Employees forming part of the same list and similarly situated cannot be denied relief once such judicial directions attain finality.
Interpretation of Umadevi (3) — Clarification in Jaggo — Human and Equitable Approach
(Para 9)
The subsequent decision in Jaggo v. Union of India clarifies that Umadevi (3) cannot be weaponized to defeat legitimate claims of long-serving employees performing indispensable duties. Courts must adopt a humane and equitable approach where appointments are not illegal and the service rendered is continuous and unblemished.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appellants were casual workers engaged in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, from the early 1990s and late 1990s. Their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange, and they were engaged after interview as daily-wage workers on posts such as Sweeper and Cook. They continued in service for considerable periods.
Their request for regularization was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that they did not fulfil the requirement of ten years’ continuous service as on 10.04.2006, as contemplated in Umadevi (3). The High Court affirmed that decision.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants demonstrated that their names appeared in the same departmental list dated 31.10.2005 (and subsequent lists) alongside other daily-wage workers whose services had already been regularized pursuant to the judgment in Ravi Verma. The Court noted that five workers from that very list had secured regularization from 01.07.2006 by virtue of judicial directions.
The Court further observed that in Raman Kumar, regularization was extended to similarly situated employees, and the principle of parity was applied to prevent discrimination.
In addition, reliance was placed on Jaggo, wherein this Court clarified that Umadevi (3) must not be misapplied to deny regularization where appointments are irregular rather than illegal and where the employees have rendered long years of indispensable service.
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had erred in mechanically applying Umadevi (3) without examining parity and the factual matrix. The High Court compounded the error by affirming that approach.
Since the appellants were similarly situated as those in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar, and since the department could not discriminate between workers drawn from the same list, the denial of regularization was unsustainable.
RATIO DECIDENDI
When daily-wage workers are similarly situated to others whose services have been regularized pursuant to judicial orders, denial of identical relief amounts to impermissible discrimination. The decision in Umadevi (3) cannot be mechanically invoked to defeat claims of long-serving employees engaged in posts of perennial nature, especially where their appointments are irregular but not illegal. Parity and equality require extension of the same benefit to all identically placed employees.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed regularization of the appellants’ services with effect from 01.07.2006 on the same terms as granted in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar. Consequential benefits were directed to be released within three months. The appeal was allowed without costs.
