Supreme Court clarifies the status of daily wage employees in Uttar Pradesh: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui (2019)

Case Background

In 1991, the Inspector General (Registration), Jhansi Division, formed a Selection Committee to recruit candidates for the Registration Department. On February 24, 1991, the committee notified vacancies to the Local Employment Exchange and interviewed candidates. The committee selected six candidates for regular vacancies and recommended two more for potential future vacancies.

The committee also noted that registration clerks were working as daily wagers in the Deputy Registrar’s office, Jhansi. A list of eleven such daily wage employees, including the respondent, Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui, was prepared. On May 27, 1991, the Inspector General (Registration) ordered the termination of all daily wage employees, including the respondent.

Following their termination, the daily wage employees approached the Allahabad High Court, which issued an interim stay on their termination on July 1, 1991. Consequently, the District Registrar, Jhansi, allowed the eleven daily wage employees to continue working on the same terms. However, the High Court dismissed their writ petition on February 8, 1995.

The daily wagers then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated September 27, 1995, remanded the case back to the High Court to determine whether the appointments were made in accordance with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985.

On remand, the Allahabad High Court, on September 9, 1999, set aside the termination orders and directed the State to grant consequential benefits, holding that the appointments were not in breach of Rule 22 of the Rules.

Meanwhile, the respondent was involved in a criminal case, which led to his being prevented from discharging his duties. After his acquittal, he made a representation to the Inspector General (Registration) on August 8, 2011, seeking regularization. This representation was rejected on August 16, 2011.

The respondent then filed another writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed by a Single Judge on April 18, 2014, setting aside the rejection of his representation and directing the grant of consequential benefits. A Special Appeal against this order was dismissed by a Division Bench on September 23, 2014, due to a delay in filing.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The daily wage employees, including the respondent, initially filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging their termination. The High Court dismissed their petition on February 8, 1995. Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, specifically directing it to examine whether the appointments were in compliance with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985.

On remand, the Allahabad High Court, on September 9, 1999, ruled in favor of the daily wage employees, setting aside the termination orders and directing the State to grant consequential benefits. The High Court held that the appointments were not in violation of Rule 22 of the Rules.

The respondent then filed another writ petition after his representation seeking regularization was rejected. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed this writ petition on April 18, 2014, setting aside the rejection of his representation and directing the grant of consequential benefits. However, a Special Appeal against this order was dismissed by a Division Bench on September 23, 2014, due to a delay in filing.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985. This rule governs the procedure for recruiting staff in subordinate offices.

Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985 states the procedure for recruitment. It mandates that vacancies must be notified to the Employment Exchange. The appointing authority may also invite applications directly from persons registered with the Employment Exchange, for which an advertisement is required to be issued in the daily newspaper.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The State argued that the respondent was initially appointed on a daily wage basis, not on a regular basis.
• The State contended that the Departmental Selection Committee had recommended only six candidates for regular vacancies and the respondent’s name was not among them.
• It was submitted that the respondent’s termination was set aside by the High Court on September 9, 1999, and he was taken back to work, but his status remained that of a daily wager.
• The State highlighted that the plea for regularization of daily wagers had been rejected by the High Court in a judgment dated October 5, 2017, which included the respondent’s case.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui):

• The respondent argued that his initial appointment was in accordance with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985.
• He contended that the High Court had accepted this in its judgment dated September 9, 1999.
• The respondent submitted that his case was distinct from the other cases related to regularization of daily wagers, which were disposed of on October 5, 2017.
• He argued that he was not seeking regularization but rather the enforcement of the High Court’s order of September 9, 1999, which had set aside his termination.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that he tried to distinguish his case from the other daily wagers by stating that he was not seeking regularization but rather the enforcement of the High Court’s order of September 9, 1999, which had set aside his termination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the respondent’s initial appointment was on a regular basis or as a daily wager.
2. Whether the respondent was entitled to regularization in service.
3. Whether the judgment of the Division Bench dated October 5, 2017, rejecting the plea for regularization of daily wagers, applied to the respondent’s case.
4. Whether the respondent’s services could be dispensed with without an order of termination in accordance with law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in the judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Factual Basis of Appointment: The court emphasized that the respondent’s initial appointment was clearly on a daily wage basis and not against a regular vacancy. This was evident from the minutes of the Departmental Selection Committee.
• Lack of Regularization Order: The court noted that there was no order that treated the respondent as a regular employee of the District Registrar. The earlier High Court order had only set aside his termination but did not grant him regular status.
• Rejection of Regularization Plea: The court highlighted that the High Court had specifically rejected the plea for regularization of daily wagers in a judgment that included the respondent’s case.
• Legal Requirement for Termination: The court acknowledged that the respondent’s services could not have been dispensed with without an order of termination in accordance with law, given that he was reinstated following the earlier order of the High Court.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful examination of the facts and the legal position. It emphasized that the respondent’s initial appointment was as a daily wager and that there was no subsequent order granting him the status of a regular employee. The court also noted that the High Court had specifically rejected the plea for regularization of daily wagers in a judgment that included the respondent’s case.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the facts or the law. The court’s reasoning was clear and straightforward, and it applied the existing legal principles to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent’s engagement was as a daily wage employee and that he had not been appointed on a regular basis. The court directed that any arrears of wages due to the respondent should be computed and paid within three months. The respondent was entitled to arrears from the date of the institution of his writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.

The court stated, “The record clearly indicates that the initial engagement was only on a daily wage basis.”

The court also stated, “The status of the respondent at all material times has been of a daily wage employee. He has not been appointed on a regular basis. He has no vested right to claim regularization in service.”

Further, the court clarified, “All that the High Court will be construed to have held is that once the respondent was reinstated in service following the earlier order dated 9 September 1999, his services could not have been dispensed with without an order of termination in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• Daily Wage Employment vs. Regular Employment: The judgment reinforces the distinction between daily wage employment and regular employment in government service. Merely working on a daily wage basis does not automatically confer a right to regularization.
• Importance of Formal Orders: The judgment emphasizes the importance of formal orders for regularization. An employee must have a specific order from the competent authority to be considered a regular employee.
• Impact of Previous Judgments: The judgment highlights how previous judgments can impact the outcome of future cases. The High Court’s rejection of the plea for regularization in a batch of cases, which included the respondent’s case, was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.
• Need for Termination Orders: The judgment clarifies that even daily wage employees cannot be terminated without a proper order of termination in accordance with law.

This judgment has significant implications for daily wage employees in government service. It clarifies that they cannot claim regularization as a matter of right and must have a specific order from the competent authority to be considered a regular employee. It also highlights the importance of formal procedures for termination, even for daily wage employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that any arrears of wages due to the respondent on the basis of his daily wage employment be computed and paid within three months from the date of the judgment. The respondent was entitled to arrears with effect from the date of the institution of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 67599 of 2011 before the Allahabad High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that merely working as a daily wage employee does not automatically grant a right to regularization in government service. There must be a specific order from the competent authority to be considered a regular employee. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the distinction between daily wage and regular employment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that the respondent, Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui, was a daily wage employee and not a regular employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court held that his initial appointment was on a daily wage basis and that there was no order granting him regular status. The court also noted that the High Court had rejected the plea for regularization of daily wagers in a judgment that included the respondent’s case. The court directed that the respondent be paid his arrears of wages as a daily wage employee.