2025 INSC 998 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8558 OF 2018

DHARAM SINGH & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1.When public institutions depend, day after day, on the

same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity

demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned

posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and

dignity. The controversy before us is not about

rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether

years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting

excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to

deny the rights of those who have kept public

institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that

public employment should be organised with fairness,

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 1

reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity

of work.

2.The present appeal arises from the judgment and order

dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special

Appeal No. 1245 of 2009, whereby the Special Appeal

preferred by the present appellants against the

dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 was

rejected.

3.By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High

Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition on the

premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage

basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher

Education Services Commission

1

(Respondent No.2

herein) for regularization. Moreover, the Court observed

that no vacancies existed against which the appellants

could be considered.

4.The factual backdrop to the present appeal is as

follows:

4.1.The appellants were engaged by the Commission

between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served

as Class-IV employees (Peon/attendant duties), and

1 In short, “the Commission”

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 2

Appellant No. 6 served as Driver (Class-III). They were

paid as daily wagers and, with effect from 08.04.1997,

received consolidated monthly amounts ( ₹1,500 for

Class-IV; ₹2,000 for Driver), while discharging

ministerial and support functions during regular office

hours. The Commission, established under the U.P.

Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980,

processes large recruitment cycles for teachers and

principals and requires ministerial support for scrutiny

of applications, dispatch, and connected administrative

work.

4.2.On 24.10.1991, the Commission resolved to create

fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV and sought

sanction from the State Government

2

. On 27.12.1997,

the State sought particulars of daily-wage hands and

their service details. On 11.02.1998, the Commission

furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers which included

the present appellants.

4.3.On 16.10.1999, the Commission reiterated its request,

seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts

for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar, adverted to administrative

exigencies, and referred to earlier correspondence. By

2 In short, “the State”

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 3

letter dated 11.11.1999, the State rejected the proposal

citing financial constraints.

4.4.Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Writ Petition No.

3162 of 2000 before the High Court praying for

(i)Quashing of the State’s order dated

11.11.1999;

(ii)A mandamus to the State to sanction/create

fourteen posts in Class-III/IV for the

Commission in terms of the Commission’s

resolution and proposals and, thereafter, to

regularise the appellants against those posts

with regular pay; and

(iii)Consequential non-interference and salary

directions.

4.5.On 24.04.2002, the High Court directed the

Commission to send a fresh recommendation for

sanction of appropriate Group-C/Group-D posts and

directed the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In

the meantime, having regard to the appellants’ long

engagement, the Commission was directed to pay them

the minimum of the applicable pay scale.

4.6.Pursuant thereto, a fresh recommendation was sent

and by communication dated 25.11.2003, the State

declined sanction, again citing financial grounds and a

ban on creation of new posts.

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 4

4.7.By judgment dated 19.05.2009, the learned Single

Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition,

holding that no rules for regularisation in the

Commission had been shown and that even assuming

the 1998 Regularisation Rules applied, there were no

vacancies for the appellants. Moreover, the Single

Judge held that regularisation was impermissible in

view of the law declared in Secretary, State of

Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others

3

and

allied precedents. It was also observed that the

petitioners (appellants herein) had not specifically

assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003.

4.8.The appellants preferred Special Appeal No. 1245 of

2009. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench

of the High Court affirmed the dismissal, observing

that the appellants were daily wagers, that there were

no rules for regularisation in the Commission and that

no vacancy existed for considering them.

5.Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the

High Court, the appellants have approached this Court

in the present appeal.

6.The question before us is whether the High Court erred

in failing to adjudicate the appellants’ principal

3 (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 5

challenge to the State’s refusals to sanction posts and

treating the matter as a mere plea for regularization,

and, if so, given the appellants’ long and undisputed

service, what appropriate relief ought to follow from

this Court.

7.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record, we are unable to endorse the

approach adopted by the High Court. The original writ

petition before the High Court expressly assailed the

State’s refusal dated 11.11.1999 to sanction posts for

the Commission and sought a mandamus for creation

of posts with consequential consideration for the

appellants. The Single Judge of the High Court, and

the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, treated

the matter as a bare plea for regularisation, answered it

only on the touchstone of absence of rules and vacancy,

and rested principally on Umadevi (Supra). In doing

so, the Courts below failed to adjudicate the principal

challenge to the State’s refusal and the legality of its

reasons. In our opinion, such non-consideration

amounts to a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to

exercise jurisdiction.

8.The State’s refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial

constraints” and the subsequent decision of

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 6

25.11.2003 (taken after the High Court’s direction to

reconsider) adverts to financial crisis and a ban on

creation of posts. Neither decision engages with

relevant considerations placed on record, namely, the

Commission’s 1991 resolution and repeated proposals,

the acknowledged administrative exigencies of a

recruiting body handling large cycles, the continuous

deployment of these very hands for years, and the

existence of attendant work that is primarily perennial

rather than sporadic. While creation of posts is

primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction

posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for

arbitrariness. We believe that a non-speaking rejection

on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, ignoring

functional necessity and the employer’s own long-

standing reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular

duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness

expected of a model public institution.

9.Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work

performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny

of applications, dispatch and office support, and

driving, has been continuous and integral to the

Commission’s functioning since their engagement

between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself moved

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 7

for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of

fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That

consistent internal demand, coupled with

uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants’ labour on

regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the

duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work

for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength

is a position that cannot be sustained.

10.It must be noted that the premise of “no vacancy” is, in

any event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An

RTI response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of

Respondent No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV

vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed

before this Court by the appellants specifically pointed

to at least five vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one

vacant Driver post within the establishment. That

application also set out the names of similarly situated

daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the

same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A. The

unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison

with those who received regularisation materially

undermine the High Court’s conclusion that no

vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis

persons similarly placed. Selective regularisation in the

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 8

same establishment, while continuing the appellants

on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties

with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.

11.Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance

placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-

suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi

(Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to

bypass the constitutional scheme of public

employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary

refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own

acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous

reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand,

Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal

appointments and irregular engagements and does not

endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment

where the work itself is permanent and the State has

failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent

decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India

4

and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam,

Ghaziabad

5

have emphatically cautioned that

Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to

justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the

use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic

4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.

5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 9

parity where identical duties are exacted over extended

periods. The principles articulated therein apply with

full force to the present case. The relevant paras from

Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:

“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance

on Umadevi (supra)

2

to contend that daily-wage or

temporary employees cannot claim permanent

absorption in the absence of statutory rules

providing such absorption. However, as frequently

reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between

appointments that are “illegal” and those that are

“irregular,” the latter being eligible for

regularization if they meet certain conditions. More

importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to

justify exploitative engagements persisting for

years without the Employer undertaking legitimate

recruitment. Given the record which shows no true

contractor-based arrangement and a consistent

need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged

asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real,

cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or

continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen

continuously rendered their services over several

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 10

years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.

Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in

full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-

despite directions to do so-allows an adverse

inference under well-established labour

jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors

perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements

in circumstances where the work is permanent in

nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil

ongoing municipal requirements year after year

cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,

particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor

agreement. At this juncture, it would be

appropriate to recall the broader critique of

indefinite “temporary” employment practices as

done by a recent judgment of this court

in Jaggo v. Union of India

3

in the following

paragraphs:

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary

employment contracts, as exemplified in this

case, reflects a broader systemic issue that

adversely affects workers' rights and job

security. In the private sector, the rise of the

gig economy has led to an increase in

precarious employment arrangements, often

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 11

characterized by lack of benefits, job security,

and fair treatment. Such practices have been

criticized for exploiting workers and

undermining labour standards. Government

institutions, entrusted with upholding the

principles of fairness and justice, bear an even

greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative

employment practices. When public sector

entities engage in misuse of temporary

contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental

trends observed in the gig economy but also

sets a concerning precedent that can erode

public trust in governmental operations.

………

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government

institutions, often face multifaceted forms of

exploitation. While the foundational purpose of

temporary contracts may have been to

address short-term or seasonal needs, they

have increasingly become a mechanism to

evade long-term obligations owed to

employees. These practices manifest in several

ways:

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 12

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is

essential, recurring, and integral to the

functioning of an institution are often

labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,”

even when their roles mirror those of

regular employees. Such misclassification

deprives workers of the dignity, security,

and benefits that regular employees are

entitled to, despite performing identical

tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary

employees are frequently dismissed

without cause or notice, as seen in the

present case. This practice undermines

the principles of natural justice and

subjects workers to a state of constant

insecurity, regardless of the quality or

duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary

employees often find themselves excluded

from opportunities for skill development,

promotions, or incremental pay raises.

They remain stagnant in their roles,

creating a systemic disparity between

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 13

them and their regular counterparts,

despite their contributions being equally

significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:

Institutions increasingly resort to

outsourcing roles performed by temporary

employees, effectively replacing one set of

exploited workers with another. This

practice not only perpetuates exploitation

but also demonstrates a deliberate effort

to bypass the obligation to offer regular

employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied

fundamental benefits such as pension,

provident fund, health insurance, and paid

leave, even when their tenure spans

decades. This lack of social security

subjects them and their families to undue

hardship, especially in cases of illness,

retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.””

12.We also note the Commission’s affidavit filed in

21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated

27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 14

supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P.

Higher Education Services Commission was merged

into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission

and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain

Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver

requirements were proposed to be met through

outsourcing. We must point out however, that

supervening structural change cannot extinguish

accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor

body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to

liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime.

More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource Class-

IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate

earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny

consideration to workers on whose continuous services

the establishment relied for decades.

13.As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and

Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a

convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to

sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is

inherently perennial. The Commission’s further

contention that the appellants are not “full-time”

employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders

also does not advance their case. That interim

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 15

protection was granted precisely because of the long

history of engagement and the pendency of the

challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates

rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that

may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of

those refusals.

14.The learned Single Judge of the High Court also

declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had

not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated

25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ

petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as

the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during

pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record

by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe

that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality

of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in

1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than

dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The

Division Bench of the High Court compounded the

error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with

the principal challenge or the intervening material. The

approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to

a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy”

while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 16

State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need

and long service, cannot be sustained.

15.Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the

impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,

in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals

for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to

address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held

unsustainable and stand quashed.

16.The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.

17.Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that

the State (here referring to both the Union and the

State governments) is not a mere market participant

but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance

budgets on the backs of those who perform the most

basic and recurring public functions. Where work

recurs day after day and year after year, the

establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned

strength and engagement practices. The long-term

extraction of regular labour under temporary labels

corrodes confidence in public administration and

offends the promise of equal protection. Financial

stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 17

is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and

the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18.Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism”

thrives where administration is opaque. The State

Departments must keep and produce accurate

establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing

arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence,

why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned

posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is

invoked, the record should show what alternatives were

considered, why similarly placed workers were treated

differently, and how the chosen course aligns with

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged

insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional

discipline that should inform every decision affecting

those who keep public offices running.

19.Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the

appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their

duties, and the material indicating vacancies and

comparator regularisations, we issue the following

directions:

i.Regularization and creation of Supernumerary

posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 18

from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court

directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission

and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts

for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the

successor establishment (U.P. Education Services

Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary

posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or

equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or

equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On

regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not

less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the

post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and

the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent

increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For

seniority and promotion, service shall count from the

date of regularization as given above.

ii.Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant

shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a)

the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of

the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and

(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from

24.04.2002 until the date of regularization

/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts

already paid under previous interim directions shall be

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 19

so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within

three months and if in default, the unpaid amount

shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from

the date of default until payment.

iii.Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already

retired shall be granted regularization with effect from

24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay

fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of

pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised

pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three

months of this Judgement.

iv.Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5

and any other appellant who has died during pendency,

his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid

the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death,

together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated

consistently with clause (i), within three months of this

Judgement.

v.Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,

or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services

Selection Commission or the prevalent competent

authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before

this Court within four months of this Judgement.

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 20

20.We have framed these directions comprehensively

because, case after case, orders of this Court in such

matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling

“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which

further prolongs the insecurity for those who have

already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we

have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on

simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of

clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance.

As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a

higher standard and therefore it must organise its

perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a

budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial

directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these

obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a

conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and

dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we

have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary

posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits,

and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a

pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and

to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and

transparency in administration are not matters of

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 21

grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of

the Constitution of India.

21.No order as to costs.

22.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

………….........................J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 19, 2025

Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 22