2026 INSC 431 CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 1 of 21

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ( CIVIL) NO. 7138 OF 2025

R. IYYAPPAN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment dated

8

th July, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras

1 in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019, whereby the

High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the

order dated 20

th December, 2018, passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench

2 in O.A. No. 326 of

2015, rejecting the appellants’ claim for regularisation of

their services.

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “Tribunal”.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 2 of 21

3. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present

appeal, are as follows: -

3.1. The appellants are daily-wage employees engaged

at different points of time between 1991 and 1997 in

the Mahendragiri Unit of the respondent-Centre. In

1993, respondent No. 1 formulated a scheme

3

conferring temporary status upon casual labourers.

Pursuant thereto, the appellants submitted

representations seeking regularisation of their services

in terms of the said scheme.

3.2. As no action was taken by the respondents, the

appellants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.

455 of 2009, seeking regularisation of their services

along with all attendant and consequential benefits

available to regular employees.

3.3. By order dated 9

th March, 2010, the Tribunal

allowed the application and directed the respondents to

formulate a scheme or issue ad-hoc rules within a

period of six months, by creating the requisite number

of posts, for engaging persons like the appellants on a

permanent basis for sporadic types of work.

3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed Writ

Petition No. 19634 of 2010 before the High Court,

3

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 3 of 21

which came to be dismissed by order dated 14

th March,

2011. The Special Leave Petition filed before this Court,

being SLP No. 19200 of 2011, was also dismissed by

order dated 29

th July, 2011, thereby attaining finality.

3.5. In purported compliance with the directions of the

Tribunal, respondent No. 1 framed the “Gang

Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work)

Scheme”

4 on 3rd September, 2012.

3.6. Contending that the said scheme was not in

consonance with the directions of the Tribunal, the

appellants filed Contempt Application No. 101 of 2011

before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by

order dated 10

th October, 2012.

3.7. In the meantime, the appellants expressed their

willingness to be governed by the said scheme.

3.8. The appellants thereafter challenged the validity of

the said scheme by filing O.A. No. 326 of 2015 before

the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 14

th July,

2016, dismissed the application. The appellants carried

the matter to the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.

8163 of 2017, which was allowed on 25

th April, 2017,

4

For short, “Gang Labourers Scheme”.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 4 of 21

and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration.

3.9. Upon remand, the Tribunal, by order dated 20

th

December, 2018, once again dismissed the application.

A Review Application No. 11 of 2019 was also

dismissed.

3.10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ

Petition No. 31674 of 2019 before the High Court,

seeking quashing of the Gang Labourers Scheme and

consequential directions for creation of posts,

retrospective appointment, and regularisation of their

services.

3.11. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 8

th

July, 2024, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: -

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

assailed the judgment of the High Court and advanced the

following submissions: -

5.1. It was contended that, in the first round of

litigation, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to

regularise the services of the appellants by creating the

requisite number of posts, along with retrospective

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 5 of 21

effect and all consequential benefits. According to the

appellants, the “Gang Labourers Scheme” framed by

the respondents is contrary to the mandate of the

Tribunal, which has attained finality upon affirmation

by this Court.

5.2. It was further submitted that the continued

engagement of the appellants on a daily-wage basis,

without regularisation, is violative of Article 23 of the

Constitution. The State, it was urged, cannot engage

individuals for work of a perennial nature over long

periods, without sanctioning posts or framing

appropriate rules, thereby subjecting them to

exploitative conditions.

5.3. It was lastly contended that the directions issued

by the Tribunal in the earlier round unequivocally

mandated regularisation of the appellants’ services

with retrospective effect.

On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the appeal

be allowed.

6. Per contra, Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents,

advanced the following submissions: -

6.1. It was contended that the appellants were engaged

only for performing sporadic and intermittent work,

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 6 of 21

such as loading, unloading, and shifting of materials,

on a need basis, and were never appointed against any

sanctioned posts for regular or permanent work.

6.2. It was further submitted that there exists no

employer–employee relationship between the

appellants and the respondent-organisation in the

strict legal sense, and therefore, the appellants cannot

claim any right to regularisation.

6.3. It was also urged that the “Gang Labourers

Scheme” framed by the respondents is fully in

consonance with the directions issued by the Tribunal

and subsequently affirmed by the High Court. Under

the said scheme, the appellants are engaged for

sporadic work up to the age of 60 years, with a

provision for consideration against future vacancies to

the extent specified therein. It was, therefore,

submitted that the respondents have duly complied

with the directions to frame a scheme regulating the

engagement and service conditions of such workers.

On these grounds, learned Additional Solicitor General

prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of

the High Court be upheld.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 7 of 21

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: -

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties

and perused the material placed on record.

8. The fulcrum of the present controversy rests upon the

true import and scope of the order dated 9

th March, 2010,

passed by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. It is

pursuant to the said order that the respondents, on 3

rd

September, 2012, framed the “Gang Labourers Scheme”.

Being aggrieved by the said scheme, the appellants have

once again approached the courts, contending that the

directions of the Tribunal have not been implemented in

their true letter and spirit.

9. According to the appellants, the Tribunal, by its order

dated 9

th March, 2010, had unequivocally directed the

respondents to grant permanent status to the appellants.

This contention, however, is seriously disputed by the

respondents, who submit that the Tribunal did not

mandate regularisation, but merely directed the

formulation of a scheme to regulate and streamline the

engagement of labourers performing sporadic work.

10. The core question that, therefore, arises for our

consideration is whether the directions issued by the

Tribunal in its order dated 9

th March, 2010, mandated

regularisation of the appellants’ services, and, if so, whether

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 8 of 21

the “Gang Labourers Scheme” framed by the respondents

satisfies such mandate.

11. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative,

namely, that the Tribunal by its order dated 9

th March,

2010 did not direct regularisation of the appellants, the very

foundation of the appellants’ claim would collapse.

12. Since the said decision of the Tribunal is central to the

resolution of the present controversy, it would be apposite

to reproduce the relevant extracts thereof: -

“7. Admittedly the respondents are not disputing

the engagement of 34 Gang labourers to attend to

sporadic nature of work such as loading,

unloading, shifting of materials packing materials,

etc. The said labourers are engaged at the main

Security gate as per the day-to-day requisition and

they are allowed inside the premises through the

token system for performance of such sporadic

types of work and they will return after

surrendering the tokens at the Security gate. The

applicants are engaged on day-to-day basis depend

upon the daily needs of the respondent office. But,

in the absence any specific rule or any scheme the

applicants have no right to claim regularization of

their services simply because they have been

engaged for-a-period ranging from 14 to 26 years.

But from the records, it is seen that continuous

engagement of labourers are made. The continuous

engagement of labourers itself proves that regular

& continuous work is available in the respondent

office. It is also accepted by the respondents that

crucial R&D activities such as assembly,

integration and testing of engines and realization

of different stages of Launch Vehicles such as

PSLV, GSLV and Space crafts such as INSAT

systems are carried out in the Mahendragiri Unit

of LPSC throughout the year. It is also contended

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 9 of 21

that the Mahendragiri facility of LPSC comprises of

Offices, Plants and Laboratories and this Unit is

declared as Prohibited Area under the Official

Secrets Act, considering the national importance,

security aspect and the need to carry out the

research activities smoothly without any external

disturbance. Further it is contended by the

respondents that the entire campus of LPS C,

Mahendragiri is spread over a vast area of about

4271 acres, and the entire area is declared as a

prohibited place under the Official Secrets Act

Therefore, the watch and ward duty is entrusted to

the Central Industrial Security force and entry into

the campus is regulated by issuance of identity

cards for the regular employees as a security

measure. The respondents also contended that no

orders appointing the Gang labourers in their

organization have ever been issued and no records

are available with them regarding engagement of

any particular labourers. Therefore, employing

different daily rated employees on day-to-day basis

would be a threat to the security. Therefore, we

are of the considered view that in order to avoid

such security threat and to employ applicants

like persons by considering their plights, the

respondents should formulate a scheme or issue

ad-hoc rules by creating the required number of

posts, to employ such persons for these

sporadic types of work on permanent basis. It is

also admitted by the respondents that to carry

out these sporadic types of work, there is no

need to engage qualified and skilled persons.

The fact remains that the applicants are

engaged by the respondents for a period ranging

from 14 to 26 years and they have rich

experience in such types of works. Therefore,

the applicants may also be considered for such

appointment on preferential basis as they have

put in nearly 14 to 26 years of experience and

considering the plights of the applicants if any

age relaxation is required that may also be

considered by the respondents for making such

appointment. Such formulation of scheme on

ad-hoc rules will put an end to the miseries of

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 10 of 21

the applicants Therefore we direct that the

respondents should complete this exercise of

framing a scheme or ad-hoc rules for engaging

such persons on permanent basis within a

period of six months and till such time the

applicants should be continued to be engaged

depend upon the requirements.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. A careful reading of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal

reveals that it approached the issue of engagement of daily-

wage labourers in two distinct facets. In the first, having

regard to the peculiar facts of the case, including the nature

of duties performed and the security considerations

involved, the Tribunal directed the respondents to frame an

appropriate scheme or ad-hoc rules within a stipulated

period so as to regulate the engagement of such persons on

a more structured and enduring basis. The underlying

intent was to ensure that the process of engagement is

institutionalised, transparent, and free from arbitrariness.

14. In the second facet, the Tribunal took note of the

prolonged service rendered by the appellants and the

experience gained by them over the years. It is in this

context that the Tribunal observed that the appellants may

be considered on a preferential basis for such engagement,

taking into account their 14 to 26 years of experience, while

leaving the ultimate appointment to be governed by the

scheme so framed.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 11 of 21

15. The aforesaid directions, when read in their entirety and

in conjunction with the reasoning adopted by the High

Court, leave no manner of doubt that the fulcrum of the

mandate was the creation of requisite posts to regularise

and systematise the engagement of persons performing

sporadic work. The emphasis was not merely on framing a

scheme in abstract, but on structuring such engagement

through the establishment of sanctioned posts, thereby

ensuring continuity, accountability, and security

considerations in a sensitive establishment. The High

Court, while taking note of the long years of service

rendered by the appellants, coupled with the admitted

position that the nature of duties did not require specialised

qualifications, reinforced the necessity of creating posts and

making appointments thereto on a permanent footing. The

direction to accord preferential consideration, including age

relaxation, was clearly ancillary to this primary mandate of

post creation.

16. Thus, the essence of the directions issued in the earlier

round of litigation was to bring about a transition from an

ad hoc, daily-wage arrangement to a structured regime

founded upon duly created posts within a stipulated time

frame. Any scheme that falls short of this requirement, by

merely regulating engagement without providing for such

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 12 of 21

post creation, cannot be said to be in compliance with the

letter and spirit of the said directions.

17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that respondent

No. 3, namely the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, is a

premier research and development unit under respondent

No. 2, the Indian Space Research Organisation, and its

campus at Mahendragiri has been declared a prohibit ed

area under the Official Secrets Act. The Tribunal, therefore,

sought to balance the competing considerations of

institutional security and the long-standing engagement of

the appellants. In that backdrop, it directed the

respondents to formulate a scheme or ad-hoc rules by

creating the requisite number of posts to engage such

persons for sporadic work on a more permanent footing. At

the same time, it emphasised that due regard be given to

the experience of the appellants by extending preferential

consideration, including relaxation in age, where necessary.

18. The Tribunal was, therefore, categorical in directing that

the scheme to be framed by the respondents must provide

for engagement on a more permanent footing. The said

directions attained finality upon dismissal of the challenge

laid by the respondents before the High Court in Writ

Petition No. 19634 of 2010, and thereafter before this Court

in SLP (Civil) No. 19200 of 2011.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 13 of 21

19. In addition, the High Court, while dismissing the writ

petition laying challenge to the decision of Tribunal, also

took note of the plight of the appellants, observing that

despite being engaged for long periods, they continued as

daily-wage labourers with a sense of insecurity and the

constant threat of termination. It, therefore, affirmed the

correctness of the Tribunal’s direction to create posts and

to engage such persons on a more permanent basis,

particularly having regard to the security concerns in a

highly sensitive establishment.

20. From the aforesaid, it becomes evident that the Tribunal

intended to bring an end to the practice of engaging

labourers on a purely daily-wage or ad hoc basis for work of

a recurring nature. The respondents were required to frame

a scheme or ad-hoc rules for creation of the requisite

number of posts, and to regulate engagement against such

posts on a more permanent basis. At the same time, the

Tribunal envisaged that the appellants be accorded

preferential consideration, having regard to their long years

of service, including relaxation in age, where warranted.

21. The issue that, therefore, arises for consideration is

whether the “Gang Labourers Scheme” introduced by the

respondents in pursuance of the Tribunal’s directions

satisfies and conforms to the mandate contained therein.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 14 of 21

22. It is in this backdrop that the respondents, after

exhausting their challenge up to this Court, framed the

“Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work)

Scheme, 2012” on 3

rd September, 2012, providing for the

manner in which such labourers would be engaged for

sporadic work in the respondent-Centre.

23. A perusal of Clause 4 of the “Gang Labourers Scheme”

indicates that the engagement contemplated therein is of a

temporary nature. For the sake of convenience, the relevant

extract of the said clause is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“4. Employment on Temporary basis

(i) All Gang Labourers who are in engagement on

the date of issue of this Scheme and who have

rendered continuous service of at least one year,

which means that they must have been engaged for

a period of at least 206 days, (since the offices of

ISRO are observing 5 days a week) would be

employed on temporary basis till they attain the

age of 60 years.

(ii) Such employment on temporary basis would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts.

(iii) Employment on temporary basis would not

involve any change in duties and responsibilities of

Gang Labourers who are engaged for performing

sporadic nature of work such. as

loading/unloading, shifting of

materials/equipment, stacking/packing/cleaning

of materials/equipment, ferrying documents from

one place to another, etc. as per day -to-day

requirement of various user Divisions/Entitles of

LPSC.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 15 of 21

(iv) Engagement of Gang Labourers will be on daily

rates of pay and they may be deployed anywhere

within LPSC Mahendragiri/Vallamala as the case

may be based on actual requirement

(v) Gang Labourers who are employed on

temporary basis shall not be brought on to the

permanent establishment unless they are selected

through regular selection process for erstwhile

Group 'D' posts on preferential basis as per Dept of

Space/Govt of India instructions on filling up of

such posts issued frons time to time.

(vi) There shall not be any age limit prescribed for

employment on temporary basis as per the said

scheme However, for the purpose of subsequent

regularisation, if any, the conditions regarding age

and educational qualifications prescribed in the

relevant Recruitment Norms/Rules will apply.”

24. It is thus evident that the scheme framed by the

respondents contemplates engagement on a temporary

basis. This is clearly at variance with the directions issued

by the Tribunal in its order dated 9

th March, 2010, which

stood affirmed by the High Court and this Court by orders

dated 14

th March, 2011 and 29

th July, 2011, respectively.

The Tribunal had categorically directed the respondents to

create the requisite number of posts and to frame a scheme

providing for engagement on a permanent footing within a

stipulated period.

25. In our considered view, the respondents have failed to

fully comply with the said directions, which had attained

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 16 of 21

finality. It was precisely this aspect that required scrutiny

by the High Court in the subsequent round of litigation.

26. In our considered view, the High Court has failed to

properly appreciate the factual matrix as well as the issue

arising for its determination. While dismissing the writ

petition filed by the appellants, the High Court returned the

following findings: -

i. That the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka

v. Umadevi,

5 lays down that there is no fundamental

right to be absorbed in service, and that no right to

employment flows from Article 21 of the Constitution.

ii. That the mere length of ad hoc, temporary, or casual

engagement cannot be a ground for regularisation or

absorption in permanent service, and that judicial

directions to that effect would run contrary to the

constitutional scheme and perpetuate illegality.

iii. That the “Gang Labourers Scheme” introduced by the

respondents ensures continued engagement of the

appellants till they attain the age of 60 years, along

with preferential consideration against future Group-

D posts.

iv. That the initial engagement of the appellants was not

made in accordance with any prescribed recruitment

5

(2006) 4 SCC 1

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 17 of 21

process and amounted to a backdoor entry, rendering

their claim for regularisation from the date of initial

engagement legally untenable.

27. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has clearly

transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction by re-entering the

merits of the issue as to whether the appellants’ services

could be regularised. This approach overlooks the fact that

the directions issued by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the

High Court and this Court in the earlier round, had already

attained finality. The scope of consideration in the

subsequent proceedings was, therefore, confined to

examining compliance with those directions. It was wholly

impermissible for the High Court to reopen the issue on

merits or to revisit the question of regularisation at that

stage.

28. Before parting with the matter, we must express our

serious disapproval of the manner in which the respondents

have dealt with the present case. The obligation of the State

to act as a model employer is not a mere exhortation but

flows directly from the guarantee of equality enshrined in

Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has, time and

again, emphasised that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness

and mandates fairness, non-discrimination, and reasoned

decision-making in all State actions.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 18 of 21

28.1. It is, therefore, a matter of concern that, despite

the passage of time and repeated judicial

pronouncements, these foundational principles

continue to be disregarded in service matters. The

present case exemplifies how a litigant, often placed at

the margins of the system, is compelled to traverse a

prolonged and arduous legal journey merely to secure

what is justly due. In the present case, the directions

issued by the Tribunal, which attained finality upon

dismissal of the challenge by this Court, ought to have

been implemented in their true spirit. Instead, the

respondents adopted a course that effectively diluted

the substance of those directions, prolonging the

dispute for years.

28.2. We are reminded of the humble beginnings of

India's space programme. In 1963, when the first

sounding rocket was launched from Thumba, its

components were transported to the launch site on a

bicycle. Similarly, in 1981, during the testing of India’s

first experimental communication satellite APPLE, the

satellite was placed on a bullock cart to create a non-

magnetic environment for antenna pattern tests in an

open field. These anecdotes, rooted in historical fact,

are not mere curiosities rather they encapsulate the

spirit of ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unrelenting

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 19 of 21

determination that defined our early scientific

endeavours. They reflect the profound struggles faced

by our scientists and the entire ecosystem that

supported them in an era of limited resources.

28.3. In celebrating the glory of our scientific fraternity,

we must not overlook the invisible yet indispensable

contributions of every individual who formed part of

that larger enterprise. The success of a rocket or a

satellite mission is not the sole outcome of high-level

design and propulsion engineering. It is equally the

result of a seamless chain of support , from the

transportation of materials to the maintenance of

facilities and the myriad ancillary tasks that ensure

operational efficiency. The last man standing in this

chain, often belonging to Group-C or Group-D services,

performs duties that may appear sporadic or peripheral

in isolation. However, without their dedicated support,

the very materials and logistics essential for scientific

advancement would falter in reaching the laboratories

and assembly halls of our scientists.

28.4. To disregard or discriminate against such

individuals in matters of service recognition would be

to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India

to the Moon and beyond. The State, as a model

employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 20 of 21

workforce, those who have contributed, however

indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount

importance, with arbitrariness or indifference. Denying

them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service

status, while reaping the benefits of their labour,

strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public

employment.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS: -

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, our conclusions are

summarised as follows: -

I. The “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types

of Work) Scheme, 2012”, insofar as it is inconsistent

with the directions issued by the Tribunal for

engagement on a permanent basis, is hereby set aside.

The respondents are consequently directed to

regularise the services of the appellants and grant

them permanent status with effect from 9th

September, 2010, being the outer limit fixed by the

Tribunal for framing the scheme, within a period of

four weeks from the date of this order.

II. Clause 2 of the said Scheme, which contemplates

engagement on a temporary basis, being contrary to

the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation,

is also set aside.

CA @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 21 of 21

III. Since the Scheme was framed pursuant to judicial

directions which have attained finality, the benefit of

this judgment shall also enure to all similarly situated

persons engaged under the said Scheme.

30. Accordingly, the judgment dated 8

th July, 2024, passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019 is set aside.

31. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

32. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

………………………………………..J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

………………………………………..J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI

APRIL 29, 2026