VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                 [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 : 2024 INSC 332

                        Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc.
                                    v.
                          Union of India & Ors.
                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024)
                               30 January 2024
             [Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for
       regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’
       against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court
       upheld the order of the Tribunal.

                                  Headnotes
       Service Law – Regularization – Temporary appointment – The
       appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the
       posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily
       appointed:
       Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot
       be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when
       the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over
       time – The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities
       of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from
       those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process
       that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive
       departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their
       initial engagement – Moreover, the appellants’ promotion process
       was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional
       Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years
       without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being
       reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being
       specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status –
       The appellants’ service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant
       a reclassification from temporary to regular status – The failure to
       recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous
       service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles
       of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations
       – Thus, the judgment of the High Court set aside. [Paras 5, 8, 9]
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                           1231

            Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.


                             Case Law Cited
           Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR
           953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 – distinguished.

                             List of Keywords
     Service law; Regularization; Temporary appointment; Continuous
     service; Permanent post; Principles of equity, Fairness; Employment
     regulations; Service conditions; Reclassification; Regular status.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of
     2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2016 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 42692 and 42688 of 2001
                         Appearances for Parties
     Ajayveer Singh, Ms. Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia, Shubham
     Tomar, Ms. Deepika Jain, Atit Jain, Ajay Jain, Sonal Jain, Advs. for
     the Appellants.
     K. Parameshwaran, Mrs. Sakshi Kakkar, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra,
     Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order
     Vikram Nath, J.
     Leave granted.
2.   These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by
     the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
     No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001,
     whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the
     judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
     dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal’s judgment negated
     the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts
     of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed.
     Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-
1232                                                      [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working
     in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period
     exceeding 25 years.
3.   Pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991, the appellants were
     initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a
     selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews.
     After the rejection of their representation for regularization to the
     Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, the appellants approached the
     Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications. The
     Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2001 dismissed the applications of
     the appellants, concluding that their appointments were temporary
     and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization
     or absorption into permanent posts. Thereafter, the appellants
     approached the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of
     the Tribunal and dismissed their Writ Petitions observing that the
     appellants’ employment under a temporary scheme could not confer
     upon them the rights akin to those held by permanent employees
     and relied upon the judgement of this Court in Secretary, State of
     Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, which held
     that temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental right
     to be absorbed into service.
4.   The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High
     Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive
     nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather
     than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally
     appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted
     Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they
     underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a
     quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization
     and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from
     the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5.   Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that
     the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely
     determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course
     of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous
     service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees,
     performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts,
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1233

            Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.


     and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular
     recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary
     and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover,
     the appellants’ promotion process was conducted and overseen by
     a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service
     for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature
     of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary
     engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their
     employment status.
6.   The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High
     Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
     circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have
     continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
     outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that
     have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service.
     Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies
     and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving
     written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the
     appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of
     Uma Devi (supra).
7.   The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished
     between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the
     importance of considering certain appointments even if were not
     made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
     cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed
     the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written
     examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of
     the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
           “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
           where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments)
           as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 :
           AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC
           409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4
           SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and
           referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
           duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
           the employees have continued to work for ten years or
           more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or
1234                                                       [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services
          of such employees may have to be considered on merits
          in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
          cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment.
          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 not under cover of orders of
          the courts or of tribunals and should 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 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.”
8.   In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the
     appellants’ arguments and holds that their service conditions, as
     evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular
     status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles
     and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs
     counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind
     employment regulations.
9.   Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High
     Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered
     for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents are
     directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months
     from the date of service of this judgment.
10. No order as to costs.

     Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                   Result of the case:
                                                          Appeals allowed.