AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ashwin Panickar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that initially, the petitioners were engaged by respondent No. 2 University on various Class-III and Class-IV posts on daily wages between 2005 and 2018, but their claim with regard to regularization has not been decided till date despite the existence of vacant corresponding posts. He further submits that the services of similarly situated daily wagers working under other State Government instrumentalities have been regularized, but no heed has been paid to the claim of the petitioners, who stand on an identical footing. He also submits that such action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory, and prays that these petitions be allowed.
On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 University, submits that the State Government has not framed any policy with regard to the regularization of daily wagers appointed after 2008 in universities across the State, therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned State counsel, fairly submits that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 University.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Through these writ petitions, daily-wage employees engaged by respondent No. 2 University between 2005 and 2018 on Class-III and Class-IV posts claim regularization on parity with similarly situated workers regularized under other State instrumentalities. In response, the University contends that their claim could not be considered for want of an enabling State Government policy applicable to university daily wagers.
It is well settled principle of law that prolonged temporary engagement of daily wagers amounts exploitation and defeats constitutional mandate. The aspect of regularization has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India1 in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under :
26.While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This or misapplied to judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and deny "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases appointments are not illegal, but merely lack where their adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27.In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
Recently, in Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi judgment cannot be used 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. Relevant paragraph 14 reads as under :-
14.The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) 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.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, these writ petitions are hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioners to make detailed representation(s) before the respondent No. 2, who in turn is directed to consider the claim of petitioners keeping in mind the observations made herein-above. It is expected that the authority concerned shall complete the entire exercise within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation(s).
With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions stand disposed.