In a significant reinforcement of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that Regularisation of Casual Workers is a mandatory obligation for the State when similarly situated employees have already been granted permanent status. Overturning a restrictive verdict by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Bench—comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar—declared that the government cannot act as a discriminatory employer by picking and choosing who among its long-serving daily wagers deserves job security. The judgment clarifies that “parity” is not merely a legal suggestion but a substantive right that prevents the State from treating equals unequally.
The Doctrine of Parity: Ending Arbitrary Selection in Service Law
The case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. serves as a stark reminder of the legal hurdles faced by the bottom tier of the government workforce. The appellants—four sweepers and a cook—were engaged by the Income Tax Department in Gwalior during the mid-1990s. Despite their recruitment following formal Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews, their journey toward Regularisation of Casual Workers was stalled for decades by bureaucratic gatekeeping.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court had previously denied them relief, citing the landmark Umadevi (2006) judgment as a shield to claim that the workers had not completed the requisite ten years of service by the specific 2006 cut-off date. However, the Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced, noting that the department had already regularized other workers under nearly identical circumstances in previous litigations.
Also Read: SC Mandates SIM-Binding for WhatsApp to Dismantle “Digital Arrest” Fraud Networks
Redefining “Backdoor” Entries: The Legal vs. Irregular Distinction
A pivotal element of this ruling is the Court’s refusal to categorize these workers as “illegal” or “backdoor” appointments. The Bench emphasized that because the workers were hired through the Employment Exchange—a recognized state channel—and subjected to interviews, any procedural gaps at the time were “irregularities” rather than “illegalities.”
Under the modern framework for the Regularisation of Casual Workers, the Court held that substantive rights accrued through decades of continuous service cannot be extinguished by minor technical flaws in the initial hiring process.
The Criteria for Regularisation: A Comparative Framework
| Service Aspect | Prohibited (Illegal) Appointment | Eligible (Irregular) Appointment |
| Recruitment Channel | Direct hiring without any public notice. | Employment Exchange or public advertisement. |
| Selection Method | No merit assessment or interview. | Formally conducted interview/test. |
| Continuity | Sporadic or seasonal engagement. | Perennial nature of work (10+ years). |
| Parity Status | No comparable permanent post exists. | Peers in same role already regularized. |
Moving Beyond Umadevi: The “Jaggo” Precedent
For nearly twenty years, the Umadevi decision was often interpreted by government departments as a permanent moratorium on regularizing any worker who missed the 2006 window. The Supreme Court has now corrected this “closed-door” philosophy by citing its recent decision in Jaggo v. Union of India.
The Court observed that Umadevi was never intended to authorize the State to exploit workers indefinitely. When the nature of work is “perennial”—meaning the tasks of cleaning, cooking, and maintenance are permanent requirements of the office—the State cannot use the excuse of “contractual outsourcing” to bypass the Regularisation of Casual Workers. In 2011, the Income Tax Department had attempted to outsource these very tasks, a move the Court viewed as an attempt to circumvent the accrued rights of the appellants.
Mandatory Compliance: Backdated Seniority and Arrears
The Apex Court has not only granted regular status but has ordered it to be effective retroactively from July 1, 2006. This ensures that these workers are placed on the same financial and professional footing as their colleagues who were regularized through previous litigation.
The Court’s directive to the Union of India includes:
- Immediate Regularisation: Formal orders to be issued within three months.
- Financial Parity: Release of all back-pay, increments, and benefits consistent with the Ravi Verma precedent.
- Seniority Protection: Inclusion in the permanent cadre with all attendant pensionary benefits.
Broader Implications for Public Sector Labor Relations
This judgment acts as a corrective measure against the “litigation fatigue” strategy often employed by state departments. By making Regularisation of Casual Workers a consequence of parity, the Court has simplified the burden of proof for thousands of other daily wagers. If one group of workers in a department wins a regularisation battle, the department is now legally barred from denying the same to others in identical roles.
Procedural lapses by the employer at the time of hiring cannot be used as a weapon against the employee twenty years later. The State, as a model employer, must prioritize constitutional fairness over technical cut-off dates.
