UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.

                         [2019] 2 S.C.R. 317                               317


                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 A
                                   v.
 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.
                 (Civil Appeal Nos.175-176 of 2019)
                         JANUARY 08, 2019                                  B
         [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                       HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
       Service Law – Regularization – Group ‘D’ workers engaged
on casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrative
                                                                           C
control of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularized
despite long years of service – Central Administrative Tribunal
mandated preparation of seniority list and for working out the
possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers – Order
affirmed by the High Court – Casual workmen moved Tribunal stating
that despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observe            D
seniority, persons below in seniority regularized – Tribunal directed
the authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casual
workers as accorded to their juniors – Challenged by Union of
India – High Court confirmed the order, also directing that even if
posts in the Institute are not available, casual workers who claimed
                                                                           E
regularization be considered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts
are available – Propriety of – Held: Direction to consider the casual
workers for regularization in other establishments was not justified
– Original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain mandamus
for regularization – Order mandated that seniority list should be
maintained by the Union of India and that the possibility of               F
regularizing the casual workmen at the Institute should be considered
against existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts – Acting
on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High
Court, Union of India proceeded to formulate seniority list and, in
fact, regularized at least four individuals – Action of selecting
                                                                           G
juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who
had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and
arbitrary – Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring
seniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded –
Arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writ
large – Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,          H
                                  317
318            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational
      principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to
      regularize the workmen concerned – Such persons who are
      available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at
      present, be considered in accordance with law – Indian Audit and
      Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011.
B
            Group ‘D’ workers, engaged on casual basis at the Regional
      Training Institute, claimed before the Central Administrative
      Tribunal that despite long years of service they were not
      regularized. The Tribunal inter alia issued directions for working
      out the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers.
C     The order was affirmed by the High Court. Casual workmen
      moved the Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions of
      the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority were
      regularized. The Tribunal directed the authorities to accord the
      benefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded to
D     their juniors. High Court while confirming the order of the
      Tribunal directed that even if posts in the Institute are not
      available, the casual workers who claimed regularization be
      considered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts are available.
      Hence the present appeals.
E           Disposing of the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the original order passed
      by the Tribunal did not contain a mandamus for regularization.
      The order mandated that a seniority list should be maintained by
      the Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casual
F     workmen at the Regional Training Institute should be considered
      against existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts. Acting
      on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed
      by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to formulate a
      seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.
      The judgment of the High Court attained finality. The Tribunal
G     justifiably held that the action of selecting juniors for
      regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who had put in
      longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary. This
      direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in
      its impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the
H
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                         319
                  TRIBUNAL & ORS.

authorities at the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case.     A
Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring seniors
shows that a favoured few have been rewarded. This is arbitrary.
[Para 19][326-B-D]
      1.2 The judgment of this Court in Uma Devi does not
preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization after            B
the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some
employees, provided that the said employees have completed
the years of service as mandated by Uma Devi. The ruling casts
an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair
opportunity of regularization to all such employees entitled
according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that the               C
benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent
regularization of employees who have completed the requisite
period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the
one-time exercise. [Para 23] [328-G; 329-A-B]
       1.3 The High Court directed the Union of India to absorb           D
the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question,
then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction
cannot be sustained. Equally, the authorities cannot be heard to
throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no
vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons         E
in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal entered
a finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the
record. Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal,
which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must
follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in
proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned. Accordingly,              F
it is directed that the case for regularization shall be considered
strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the
directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by
the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for
regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall       G
be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal had denied
back-wages but ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances.
While affirming that direction, it is also directed that persons
who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to

                                                                          H
320            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis.
      If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the concerned
      workmen, the appellants shall do so. [Para 26] [329-G-H;
      330-A-E]
            Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4
B           SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
            State of Karnataka v. M L Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
            [2010] 9 SCR 543 ; Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
            Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238 – relied on.

C           Malathi Das v. Suresh (2014) 13 SCC 249 :
            [2014] 3 SCR 637 ; Prem Ram v. Managing Director
            Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam
            Dehradun (2015) 11 SCC 255 : [2015] 7 SCR 192
            – referred to.

D                            Case Law Reference
            [2006] 3 SCR 953         followed                Para 14
            [2014] 3 SCR 637         referred to             Para 15
            [2015] 7 SCR 192         referred to             Para 15
E
            [2010] 9 SCR 543         relied on               Para 21
            (2018) 8 SCC 238         relied on               Para 23
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 175-
      176 of 2019.
F
             From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ – A Nos. 35395 & 35398
      of 2013.
            Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ms. V.D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., Sachin
G     Sharma, P.V. Yogeshwaran, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Grover,
      Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs.for the Appellants.
             Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Gaurav Agarwal, Raj Singh Rana, Advs.
      for the Respondents.

H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                             321
        TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The Union
of India has moved these proceedings aggrieved by a judgment of a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19 July, 2013.
       2. The issue pertains to a direction for regularizing the services of
eighteen respondents in Group ‘D’ posts at the Regional Training Institute       B
at Allahabad1. The organization falls under the administrative control of
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
        3. The first round of proceedings was initiated on behalf of persons
who had been engaged as Group ‘D’ workers on a casual basis at the
Institute. The grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal was          C
that since 1986, the Institute had engaged casual workers and, despite
long years of service, they had not been regularized. By the time the
Tribunal delivered its judgment on 6 January, 2006, many of them had
put in well over twelve years of service. While disposing of the Original
Application2, the Tribunal issued directions (i)mandating the preparation        D
of a seniority list in accordance with the number of days worked; and
(ii) for working out the possibility of regularizing the services of these
casual workers against vacant Group ‘D’ posts then existing or as may
be created in the near future.
      4. The Tribunal directed that in the meanwhile the workers shall           E
be accommodated in batches of twenty in accordance with the exigencies
of work in the Institute. The directions contained in the judgment of the
Tribunal are extracted below:
         “6...The possible solution, therefore, would be that the respondents
         carry out an exercise of preparing a seniority list in the descending
                                                                                 F
         order of the number of days these casual labourers worked as on
         01.04.2005 (irrespective of whether the casual labourers were on
         duty on this day) and on the basis of their seniority, they shall
         work out the possibility of regularizing the services of such casual
         labourers against any vacant post of Group D post or any new
         post created in the near future. In so far as day to day work is        G
         concerned, the respondents shall accommodate the first 20 and in
         case of their unavailability for any span of time, according to the
         seniority they may engage other casual labourers on need basis.
1
    ‘The Institute
2
    OA No 1191 of 2004                                                           H
322                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A             Those who are tailenders, may be suitably informed of their bleak
              prospects of being engaged in view of the fact that there are
              adequate number of casual labourers to be engaged for day to
              day work who are senior to such persons. Out of the seniors as
              on date, if any of them are not being engaged, the respondents
              shall accommodate them as well.”
B
              5. The judgment of the Tribunal was assailed before and considered
      by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in writ proceedings3
      initiated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The High Court
      by its judgment dated 23 March 2006 observed that “it was not in dispute”
      that there was no positive direction as such for regularization of the
C     service of the casual workmen and that there was only a direction for
      considering the possibility of regularization. Hence, while disposing of
      the petition, the High Court observed thus:
              “It is not disputed by … learned counsel for the respondents that
              the Tribunal had not issued any positive direction for regularization
D             of service of such casual labourers but had merely observed that
              the petitioners should consider the possibility of regularizing the
              services against any vacant group ‘D’ post or any new post that
              was likely to be created in near future. In this view of the matter,
              the contention advanced by Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel
              for the petitioners that a positive direction for regularization could
E             not have been issued by the Tribunal, is misconceived.
              We are also of the considered opinion that the direction by the
              Tribunal to accommodate the first 20 casual labourers from the
              list prepared on the basis of the seniority is also in consonance
              with the provisions of Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central)
F             Rules, 1957 and as such it calls for no interference from this
              Court.”
              6. After the judgment of the High Court, the casual workmen
      moved the Tribunal in another Original Application in 20084. The specific
      grievance with which the application was moved was that despite the
G     specific directions contained in the order of the Tribunal to observe
      seniority, persons who had been regularized and given permanent status
      were below the applicants in the order of seniority. Specific examples
      were furnished of the manner in which the seniority list was breached.
      3
          Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 15825 of 2006
      4
H         OA No 1052 of 2008
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                             323
        TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       7. The Union of India responded to the averments contained in             A
the Original Application and sought to contend that it had engaged such
of the casual workers who had reported for work.
       8. The Tribunal by its decision dated 2 April, 2013 held that in
pursuance of its earlier order, which was confirmed by the Allahabad
High Court, the Union of India was obliged to prepare a seniority list           B
based on the number of days worked and to consider the possibility of
regularization against existing or future vacancies. The Tribunal observed
that despite its earlier directions, the authorities at the Institute had
proceeded to regularize persons junior to them and with a lesser length
of service.
                                                                                 C
        9. In the meantime, in 2011, new recruitment rules titled “the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department Multi- Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules,
2011”5 came into force in pursuance of which advertisements were issued
for filling up several posts of Multi-Tasking Staff.
       10. The Tribunal observed that though the applicants before it had        D
admittedly worked for a longer period of time than the private respondents
(Respondents 6 to 9) who had been regularized, the benefit of
regularization had not been granted to seniors in the seniority list. The
Tribunal has rejected the defence that those who are not regularized,
though senior, had not reported for work. In this view of the matter, the
Tribunal noted that the Union of India had committed a breach of its             E
assurance furnished in the course of earlier contempt proceedings that
those who would report for duty would be accepted on work. Moreover,
while failing to regularize persons who had put in more than 12 years of
service as casual workers, the benefit of regularization had been granted
to juniors despite the earlier orders which had attained finality. The           F
Tribunal accordingly issued the following directions:
          “21. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the
          respondents shall accord the same benefit of regularisation to the
          applicants as has been admittedly accorded to their juniors
          Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. While according the said benefit to the        G
          applicants, the respondents would follow the order of seniority in
          the seniority list admittedly prepared in pursuance to the orders of
          this Tribunal in OA No.1191 of 2004 as upheld by the Hon’ble
          Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No.15825/06. The said
5
    ‘Multi-Tasking Rules
                                                                                 H
324             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A            benefit shall be accorded to the applicants from the same date as
             that of their admitted juniors. The said regularisation would be
             accorded in the available vacancies in various categories like
             unreserved, SC, ST and OBC by maintaining the category of the
             respective applicants and subject to availability of vacancies in
             the respective categories. However, the applicants will not be
B
             entitled to any back wages for the period they have not actually
             worked but they will be entitled to notional fixation of pay and
             allowances from the date of joining of their admitted juniors and
             on that basis actual pay and allowances from their actual date of
             joining. The applicants will also be entitled to all other consequential
C            benefits.”
             11. It was the above direction of the Tribunal which the Union of
      India questioned in the proceedings before the High Court and which
      culminated in the impugned order. The High Court has, while confirming
      the order of the Tribunal, held that in regularizing the juniors of the private
D     respondents against vacant Group ‘D’ posts, the appellants have frustrated
      the orders passed by the Court in the earlier proceedings. Hence, it has
      been directed that even if posts in the Institute are not available, the
      applicants who claimed regularization could be considered in other places
      where Group ‘D’ posts are available.
E            12. At the outset, Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
      General has urged that the Division Bench was not justified in issuing a
      direction for considering the case for regularization in other places where
      Group ‘D’ posts are available. The learned ASG urges that no posts are
      available at the Institute for regularization. The Multi-Tasking Rules
      have come into force in 2011 and at the highest, the workmen may be
F     allowed an age relaxation if any posts are freshly advertised.
             13. We find merit in the contention that the direction to consider
      the casual workers for regularization in other establishments was not
      justified. The issue essentially is whether regularization in the
      establishment of the Regional Training Institute was required to be carried
G     out, consistent with the earlier directions which had attained finality.
            14. We must, at the outset, note that the earlier decision of the
      Tribunal was rendered on 6 January, 2006 while the decision of the High
      Court was rendered on 23 March, 2006. The judgment of the Constitution

H
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                          325
       TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi             A
(3)6 was delivered on 10 April, 2006.
      15. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the
respondents by Ms. Preetika Dwivedi is that the applicability of Uma
Devi has been considered in two decisions of this Court in Malathi Das
v. Suresh7 and in Prem Ram v. Managing Director Uttarakhand                  B
Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam Dehradun8.
       16. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of the judgment
of this Court in Uma Devi, the Union of India was required to adhere to
a seniority list. There was a clear breach on the part of the Union of
India in doing so inasmuch as juniors to those who were senior in the        C
seniority list were admittedly regularized. Ms Dwivedi has ably assisted
this Court in pursuing her client’s cause for justice.
       17. From the record before this Court, it has emerged that as a
matter of fact, four persons were regularized after the judgment of the
High Court in the earlier round of proceedings. The Tribunal has entered     D
a finding of fact that the persons who were regularized were junior to
those who ranked above them in the seniority list. The applicability of
Uma Devi to a situation such as present, has been dealt with in several
judgments of this Court, including the decisions in Malathi Das and
Prem Ram, referred to earlier.
                                                                             E
       18. In Malathi Das, this Court noted that, as a matter of fact, the
authorities had granted regularization to various other individuals who
were similarly placed. Among them were persons who were regularized
even after the decision in Uma Devi. Similarly, in Prem Ram, this
Court observed that persons who were appointed on a date subsequent
to the appellant were regularized. A distinction was sought to be made in    F
the case of the appellant on the specious plea that they were brought on
to a work-charge establishment. This Court observed that what was
important was that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the
year 1988 and, by the time the decision in Uma Devi was rendered, he
had completed more than ten years of service. The Government had             G
formulated Rules for regularization. This Court noted that neither the
State Government nor the Jal Nigam had resented the idea of regularizing
those who had served for over a decade. In this background, the Court
6
 (2006) 4 SCC 1
7
 (2014) 13 SCC 249
8
  (2015) 11 SCC 255                                                          H
326             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     came to the conclusion that there was no impediment in directing
      regularization of the services of the appellant and for the release of
      retiral dues on that basis.
             19. In the present case, the original order passed by the Tribunal
      did not contain a mandamus for regularization. The order mandated that
B     a seniority list should be maintained by the Union of India and that the
      possibility of regularizing the casual workmen at the Regional Training
      Institute should be considered against existing and future vacancies in
      Group ‘D’ posts. Acting on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal,
      which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to
      formulate a seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals.
C     The judgment of the High Court attained finality. Even before the decision
      in Uma Devi, as the Tribunal noted, the workmen had put in over twelve
      years of service. The Tribunal, in our view, justifiably held that the action
      of selecting juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons
      who had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary.
D     This direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in its
      impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at
      the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case. Picking up individuals
      for regularization, while ignoring seniors shows that a favoured few have
      been rewarded. This is arbitrary.
E            20. Following the logic of the two decisions of this Court which
      have been noted earlier, we are of the view that the decision in Uma
      Devi cannot be used as a charter to discriminate between similarly placed
      employees, once the Union of India in fact takes a decision to regularize
      the individuals borne on a seniority list. This decision, as we have already
      noted earlier, was taken in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal
F     and of the High Court both of which were rendered before the decision
      in Uma Devi.
            21. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a
      Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi. Justice P K
      Balasubramanyan, speaking for the Court, held thus:
G
             “53…In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments
             and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
             one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
             have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but

H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                          327
        TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should      A
      further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
      vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
      temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
      The process must be set in motion within six months from this
      date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but
                                                                              B
      not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but
      there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional
      requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
      appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
      22. The directions issued in Uma Devi have been considered by
subsequent benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M L                C
Kesari9, a two-judge bench of this Court held that the “one-time
measure” prescribed in Uma Devi must be considered as concluded
only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Uma
Devi, had been considered. Justice R V Raveendran, who wrote the
opinion of the Court, held:                                                   D
      “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper
      perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in
      Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should
      undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual,
      daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more
      than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and     E
      subject them to a process verification as to whether they are
      working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification
      for the post and if so, regularise their services.
      10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi,
      cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still          F
      pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and
      instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation
      process. On the other hand, some government departments or
      instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several
      employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases
                                                                              G
      were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such
      circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered
      in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their
      right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the
      one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases,
9
    (2010) 9 SCC 247                                                          H
328             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A            or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi
             has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-
             wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of
             continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the
             protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If
             any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of
B
             para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some
             employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of
             Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their
             cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The
             one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the
C            employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of
             para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.
             11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is
             two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than
             ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim
D            orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi
             was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their
             long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/
             instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing
             persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and
             then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have
E            served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional
             or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment.
             The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked
             for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in
             Umadevi] without the protection of any interim order of any court
             or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification,
F
             are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the
             employer has not undertaken such exercise of
             regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi
             or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a
             limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to
G            be considered for regularisation in terms of the above
             directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.”
                                                               (Emphasis supplied)
             23. The judgement of this Court in Uma Devi does not preclude
      the claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise has
H     been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE                           329
        TRIBUNAL & ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Uma               A
Devi. The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities
to grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees which
are entitled according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that
the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularization
of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to
                                                                               B
be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.
      24. The decisions of this Court in Uma Devi and ML Kesari
were considered by a two-judge bench of this Court in Narendra Kumar
Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand10. Justice Madan Lokur construed the
decision in Uma Devi in the following terms:
                                                                               C
          “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was
          therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal
          appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on
          those irregularly appointed in the past…”
        25. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a strict and         D
literal interpretation was given to the decision in Uma Devi, no employee
from the State of Jharkhand appointed on an irregular basis could ever
be regularized as the State was formed on 15 November 2000 and the
cut-off date had been fixed as 10 April 2006. The intent of the Court
was to grant similarly-placed employees who had put the requisite years
of service as mandated by Uma Devi, the benefit of regularization. The         E
Court thus held that the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit
Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran
Niyamawali, 2015 (“the Regularsation Rules”) must be interpreted in a
pragmatic manner and employees of the State who had completed 10
years of service on the date of promulgation of the rules, ought to be
                                                                               F
regularized. In doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the State
of Jharkhand who had completed the same years of service as employees
from other States, are granted parity in terms of regularization. The
spirit of non-discrimination and equity runs through the decisions in Uma
Devi, ML Kesari and Narendra Kumar Tiwari.
                                                                               G
       26. In this background, the issue which now arises before this
Court is in regard to the effective direction which would govern the
present case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorb
the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then

10
     (2018) 8 SCC 238                                                          H
330             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we have
      already noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion, the authorities
      cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there
      are no vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons
      in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal has entered a
      finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record.
B
      Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to implement the
      decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the
      Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the
      seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned.
      Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularization shall be considered
C     strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions
      which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and
      such of the persons, who are available for regularization on the basis of
      vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with
      law. The Tribunal has denied back-wages but has ordered a notional
      fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, we also
D
      direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be
      entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that
      basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months
      from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary to
      grant age relaxation to the concerned workmen, the appellants shall do
E     so.
            27. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall
      be no order as to costs.


      Divya Pandey                                               Appeals disposed of.
F




G




H