AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the oral termination dated 12.05.2010 with all consequential benefits.
(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 6.5.2011 and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.10.2000 from which date the services of his other similarly situated employees were regularized.
(iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to pay full salary to the applicant, who is being giving to the other companion employees.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(v) Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are that applicant was engaged as a part time Sweeper under the respondent No. 3 in the year 1981. The respondents have issued the certificate for working period of the applicant since 1989 to 1999. Thus, it is proved that applicant was working since 1981 to May 2010. Applicant sent a representation on 20.05.1998 to all the respondents for the regularization of his services. Respondents has issued identity card in favour of the applicant on 30.11.1998. Dy. General Manager (Admn) U.P East, Lucknow passed an order by which 4 persons were converted into full time casual labourers but the said benefit has not been given to the applicant. Applicant sent a representation for regularization of his services because the services of the other casual labourers were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2000. He has also sent an application dated 28.11.2007 requesting therein that he be given full payment of his salary. During the pendency of the representation of the applicant, respondents have orally terminated the services of the applicant on 12.05.2010. When respondents have not considered the grievance of the applicant, applicant filed original application No. 882 of 2010 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 17.06.2010, directed the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant within a period of 3 months. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, applicant has submitted his representation along with certified copy of the order of Tribunal on 08.07.2010. When respondents failed to consider the representation of the applicant then applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of contempt petition and after issuance of notice, respondents have filed counter affidavit in which they have admitted that services of 110 casual labourers have been converted into full time casual labourers. Thereafter respondents have passed an order dated 6.5.2011 whereby in compliance of direction of the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid OA, representation of the applicant was rejected. Aggrieved against the aforesaid impugned orders, applicant filed present original application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the applicant was a part-time employee. His employment ended naturally after the contractual period expired. There is no rule that allows casual laborers to be regularized (i.e., converted from temporary to full-time employees). As a result, the applicant’s claim for regularization was denied correctly vide order dated 6.5.2011. Respondents further stated in the counter affidavit that the DOT letter No. 269-10/97-STN-II dated 29.09.2000 pertains specifically to the posts of Aaya or Supervisor. According to aforesaid letter, only these specific posts can be converted from part-time casual labor to full-time casual labor. Since the applicant does not hold either of these posts, they are not eligible for the benefits under this policy.
Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
We have heard Shri M.K. Upadhyay learned counsel for the applicants and Shri D.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant worked continuously from 1981 to 2010 (nearly 30 years). Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that applicant was issued an identity card and a certificate for his working period (1989-1999), which directly acknowledges his service tenure. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the respondents regularized other casual laborers who were similarly situated, creating a legitimate expectation that the applicant would also receive the same benefit. Thus, the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents the respondents from denying regularization when the applicant was allowed to work under similar conditions for decades. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was orally terminated on 12.05.2010 without any formal inquiry, notice, or written termination order, which violates the principle of natural justice, specifically the rule of Audi Alteram Partem. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that the respondents regularized the services of other similarly placed casual laborers (110 in total), but denied the same benefit to the applicant without any reasonable justification. Learned counsel lastly contended that since the applicant had worked as part time Casual Labour for more than statutory period, thus services of the applicant is liable to be regularized. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others in SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024 & SLP (C) No. 11086 of 2024 passed on 20.12.2024.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that since the applicant was engaged as a part-time casual laborer without a formal appointment, he cannot claim a legal right to be regularized. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that according to rules, casual employment does not create an automatic right to permanent status unless there is a specific policy or rule permitting it. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that DOT Letter No. 269-10/97-STN-II dated 29.09.2000 only applies to Aaya and Supervisor posts and not to part-time sweepers. Since no specific government rule or policy allows the conversion of the applicant’s post from part-time to full-time, the rejection of regularization was legally justified. Learned counsel for the respondents next contended that the applicant claims that other casual laborers were regularized, but he has not demonstrated that his case is identical to others. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the applicant’s employment was not permanent, so the principle of Audi Alteram Partem does not apply in cases where employment ends naturally due to the expiration of its term.
We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
In the instant case, the applicant served the department continuously for 29 years. This fact has also been acknowledged by the respondents. No specific denial in the counter affidavit has been made. The sudden termination without following due process violates the principles of natural justice. The applicant had a legitimate expectation of continued employment or regularization based on long-term engagement. Hon’ble Courts in catena of decisions have held that long-term engagement of casual workers without regularization leads to "exploitation of labour", violating principles of natural justice. To support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) wherein it has been held that :-
“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below:
“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).
The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 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…”
The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
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”.
While the judgment in Uma Devi (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 or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “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 where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (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.
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.
In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits”.
Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the applicant worked for 29 years in the department, showing a long-term need of his services. Thus, termination without proper reason is unfair and arbitrary. Since the applicant was allowed to work for so long, he had a reasonable expectation of job security or regularization and if other similar workers were regularized, denying the same benefit to the applicant is discriminatory and terminating the applicant’s service without a proper hearing or justification violates natural justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) in the similar facts and circumstances ruled that long-term workers should be considered for regularization if they served for more than statutory period. The applicant has worked for 29 years thus, his case makes stronger than others.
In view of observation made herein above, we are of the opinion that OA is liable to be allowed and accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders dated 6.5.2011 is hereby quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to take back the applicant in the service if he has not reached at the age of superannuation and thereafter proceed to regularize the service of the applicant in accordance with law. If he has crossed the age of superannuation, pensionary benefits be extended to him regularizing the services of the applicant. Applicant would not be entitled for any back wages/salary for the period in which he was out of service but that period shall be counted for pensionary benefits only. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of accordingly.