Supreme Court of India
DHARAM SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 998
- Decided
- 19 August 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The State's refusals to sanction permanent posts for the appellants were arbitrary, unsustainable and violative of constitutional principles, and must be quashed with the appellants regularised and awarded arrears.
Summary
The appellants, six former daily‑wage employees (Class‑IV peons/attendants and a Class‑III driver) were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992 and continued to work for decades. The Commission repeatedly sought sanction of fourteen permanent posts for such workers, but the State repeatedly refused on the grounds of financial constraints and a ban on creating new posts. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the State's refusals and regularisation; the High Court dismissed the petition, holding there were no rules or vacancies and relying on the Umadevi decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not adjudicating the principal challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals and by treating the matter merely as a regularisation plea. The Court found the refusals unreasonable, noted the perennial nature of the duties, the existence of vacancies, and the inequitable treatment compared with similarly placed workers, and therefore quashed the State's refusals and ordered regularisation with back‑pay and other reliefs.
Issues considered
- The High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants' principal challenge to the State's refusal to sanction permanent posts.
- Whether the State's refusal to sanction posts on the basis of financial constraints and a ban on new posts was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the supervening reorganisation and outsourcing policy can extinguish the appellants' accrued claims.
- Whether the absence of specific regularisation rules or vacancies precludes regularisation of long‑serving daily‑wage workers.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants’ principal 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, Court. Headnotes† Service Law – Regularization – State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the perennial nature of duties and long service – Entitlement to regularization – Appellants (Class-IV employees-peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged
Subjects
RegularizationRefusal to sanction postsState’s arbitrary refusal to sanction postsPerennial nature of dutiesLong serviceContinuous servicesClass-IV employeesClass-III driverU.P. Higher Education Services CommissionFinancial constraintsSelective regularisationDaily wagersPublic employmentOutsourcingEquityArticles 14, 16, 21
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1026 : 2025 INSC 998
Dharam Singh & Ors.
v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018)
19 August 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants’
principal 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.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Regularization – State’s arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the perennial nature of duties and
long service – Entitlement to regularization – Appellants
(Class-IV employees-peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged
between 1989 and 1992 by the U.P. Higher Education Services
Commission – Regularization denied by the State on financial
grounds and a ban on creation of new posts – Writ petition
filed by the appellants, dismissed by Single Judge – Order
affirmed by Division Bench – Sustainability:
Held: Unsustainable – 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 ever since their engagement – The
unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those
who received regularisation undermine the High Court’s conclusion
that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis
persons similarly placed – Selective regularisation in the same
establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages
despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized
violates equity – Moreover, the Commission itself moved for
sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily
wagers including the appellants – Consistent internal demand,
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1027
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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 cannot be sustained – State’s
refusals 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 unsustainable, quashed – A non-
speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”,
ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own longstanding
reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not
meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public
institution – Appellants entitled to regularisation; comprehensive
directions issued – U.P. Higher Education Services Commission
Act, 1980. [Paras 8-10,15, 19]
Service Law – Claim for regularization – Effect of reorganisation/
structural change, if any – Appellants (Class-IV employees-
peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged between 1989 and
1992 by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission –
Denied regularization despite their long and undisputed
service – Commission inter alia referred to a supervening
reorganisation in 2024 whereby it was merged into the
U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a
Government Order certain Group-C posts were sanctioned
while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met
through outsourcing:
Held: 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 – A later policy to outsource ClassIV/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. [Para 12]
Service Law – Public employment – Perennial and recurring
work – Need for sanctioned posts – Duty of State – Constitution
of India – Arts.14, 16 and 21. [Paras 17, 18, 20]
Case Law Cited
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. v. Umadevi & Others [2006]
3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 – held inapplicable.
1028 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jaggo v. Union of India [2024] 12 SCR 1235 : 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3826; Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025] 1
SCR 1427 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 – referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Regularization; Refusal to sanction posts; State’s arbitrary refusal
to sanction posts; Perennial nature of duties; Admitted perennial
nature of their duties; Long service; Long and undisputed
service; Continuous services; Decades of continuous services;
Regularization; Class-IV employees; Class-III; Peons; Driver;
Attendant/Guard; U.P. Higher Education Services Commission;
Regularization denied; Financial grounds; Financial constraints;
Sanctioned posts; Creation of posts; Ban on creation of new posts;
Selective regularisation; Daily wagers; Ad hoc engagement; Public
employment; Public institutions; Want of sanctioned strength;
Ministerial/attendant work; Supernumerary posts; Recurring
public functions; Supervening structural change; Supervening
reorganisation; U.P. Education Services Selection Commission;
Outsource; Outsourcing; Equity; Violation of equity.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8558
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in SAN No. 1245 of 2009
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Onkar Prasad, A.K. Ydav, Abhishek Chakraborty, Shantanu
Bhowmick, Vikram Kumar Seth, Sriram P., Anil K. Chopra, Rajesh
Gulab Inamdar, Shashwat Anand, P. Ashok.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma,
Ms. Bharti Tyagi.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1029
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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, 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 Commission1 (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 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
1 In short, “the Commission”
1030 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 Government2. 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 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.
2 In short, “the State”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1031
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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 &
Others3 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 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.
3 (2006) 4 SCC 1
1032 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8. The State’s refusal of 11.11.1999 cites “financial constraints” and
the subsequent decision of 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 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 same establishment,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1033
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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 India4 and in Shripal &
Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 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 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.
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.
1034 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
rendered their services over several 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 India3 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
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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1035
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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:
• 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 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,
1036 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1037
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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 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 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.
1038 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1039
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
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.
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Regularization"Sign in to search