Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Ad-hoc Employees: Rajnish Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: S.A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant

Can ad-hoc employees working for an extended period claim regularization? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, providing significant relief to numerous ad-hoc employees. This case revolves around the long-standing issue of ad-hoc appointments and their regularization in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, delivered the judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Gavai.

Case Background

The appellants were initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis in the newly created Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship between 1999 and 2001. Their initial appointments were for three months, which were extended periodically. In 2001, an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment of Class-III employees. The appellants filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, which were clubbed together. On 01.08.2006, the High Court directed that the appellants could apply for the advertised posts and their cases would be considered along with other candidates. The District Judge was also permitted to send their names to the High Court for age relaxation. The High Court also noted that the District Judge and Selection Committee could consider the length of service and experience of the appellants. Until the selection process was completed, the appellants were allowed to continue in service. The selection process was later cancelled, and the appellants continued their employment on an ad-hoc basis.

The appellants then made representations to the District Judge for regularization. On 28.05.2012, the District Judge constituted a committee headed by an Additional District Judge, which recommended regularization of the appellants on 12.07.2012. Subsequently, on 09.11.2012, the District Judge regularized the services of the appellants. However, on 16.08.2014, the successor District Judge declared the regularization orders non-est, withdrew the benefits of increments, and directed recovery of emoluments paid to the appellants. Following the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court on 14.09.2017, the appellants’ services were terminated on 23.09.2017.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the orders of the District Judge dated 16.08.2014, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.4813 (S/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530 (S/S) of 2014. The single judge of the High Court dismissed these petitions on 14.09.2017 and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on each of the appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeals but set aside the cost imposed by the single judge. The Division Bench directed that one of the appellants, Manish Kumar Malviya, who was appointed on 06.04.1998, should be considered for regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1979, as amended in 2001. The Division Bench also directed that if any recruitment for Class III posts takes place in the future, the appellants would be permitted to participate and would be given age relaxation and preference based on their length of service. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions and rules:

• Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (as amended in 2001): These rules pertain to the regularization of ad-hoc appointments in Uttar Pradesh.
• Uttar Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001: These rules were notified on 31.12.2001 and provided a cut-off date for regularization.
• UP Regularization of Persons Working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in government department on group ‘C’ and group ‘D’ posts (outside the purview of the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016: These rules provided a cut-off date of 31.12.2001 for regularization.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had submitted a report on 12.07.2012 based on a circular dated 05.11.2009 issued by the High Court.
• The then District Judge had rightly issued the order of regularization on 9.11.2012 after considering the committee’s report.
• The successor District Judge had no reason to cancel the regularization order on 16.08.2014.
• The High Court failed to consider the UP Regularization Rules, 2016, which provided a cut-off date of 31.12.2001.
• The Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., after considering Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., had directed regularization of employees who had completed 10 years of service.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The appellants continued in service due to an interim order of the High Court dated 01.08.2006 and, therefore, were not entitled to the one-time regularization benefit provided in Umadevi.
• The committee report dated 12.07.2012 was collusive, and the successor District Judge rightly cancelled the regularization order on 16.08.2014.
• The appellants were not entitled to equitable relief.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the appellants, who were appointed on an ad-hoc basis and had completed more than 10 years of service, were entitled to regularization, especially considering the exception carved out in Umadevi and the subsequent rules framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 18* to highlight the exception carved out for one-time regularization of employees with 10 years of service.
• The Supreme Court followed Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 432* which had directed regularization of similarly placed employees in Uttar Pradesh.
• The Court considered the circular dated 05.11.2009 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad, noting that the committee had based its recommendations on it.
• The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (as amended in 2001), noting that the Division Bench of the High Court had considered these rules for considering regularization of one of the appellants.
• The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001, which provided a cut-off date for regularization.
• The Court considered the UP Regularization of Persons Working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in government department on group ‘C’ and group ‘D’ posts (outside the purview of the UP Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, which provided a cut-off date of 31.12.2001.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The fact that the appellants had been working for a considerable period on an ad-hoc basis.
• The exception carved out in Umadevi for one-time regularization.
• The parity with similarly circumstanced employees who had been granted relief in Sheo Narain Nagar.
• The amended rules of 2016, which provided a cut-off date of 31.12.2001, which the appellants met.
• The violation of natural justice by the successor District Judge.

Fact:Law

The Court emphasized the factual aspects of the appellants’ long service and the legal principles established in previous judgments and rules.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the appellants met the criteria for regularization based on the exception carved out in Umadevi, the principles laid down in Sheo Narain Nagar, and the cut-off date provided in the 2016 Rules. The Court also held that the successor District Judge could not have annulled the regularization order without following the principles of natural justice.

Key Takeaways

• Ad-hoc employees who have completed 10 years of service are entitled to be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
• The cut-off date of 31.12.2001, as provided in the 2016 Rules, is a crucial factor in determining eligibility for regularization.
• Orders of regularization cannot be annulled without following the principles of natural justice.
• The Supreme Court’s decision provides a significant precedent for regularization of ad-hoc employees in similar situations.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The appeals are allowed.
2. The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court are quashed and set aside.
3. The orders of the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, dated 16.08.2014, are quashed and set aside.
4. The consequential order of termination dated 23.09.2017 is also quashed and set aside.
5. The order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, regularizing the services of the appellants with effect from 01.06.2012 is upheld.
6. The appellants are directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service for all purposes, including terminal benefits.
7. The appellants are not entitled to back wages for the period during which they were out of employment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that ad-hoc employees who have completed 10 years of service and were appointed before 31.12.2001 are entitled to regularization, as a one-time measure, in line with the exception carved out in Umadevi and the principles laid down in Sheo Narain Nagar. This judgment reinforces the principle that long-serving ad-hoc employees should be considered for regularization, especially when they meet the criteria set by the government and the courts. This case also clarifies that orders of regularization cannot be arbitrarily cancelled without adhering to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnish Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh provides significant relief to ad-hoc employees who have served for extended periods. The Court upheld the regularization of the appellants, emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the exception carved out in Umadevi for one-time regularization. This decision reinforces the rights of long-serving ad-hoc employees and sets a precedent for similar cases.