Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Long-Serving Part-Time Workers: Jaggo vs. Union of India (20 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 1034

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can long-serving part-time employees, who have diligently performed essential duties for years, be denied regularization? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving several part-time workers of the Central Water Commission (CWC). The court’s decision highlights the importance of fair labor practices and the rights of employees who have contributed significantly to an organization, regardless of their initial employment status. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves several individuals who were initially engaged on a part-time, ad-hoc basis by the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant No. 1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No. 2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No. 3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. Applicant No. 5 was appointed as a Khallasi in 2004. These individuals performed essential housekeeping and maintenance tasks at CWC offices, including those at Faridabad. Over time, they sought regularization of their services, contending that their roles and responsibilities had evolved beyond the initial labels of “part-time” or “contractual”. They argued that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC’s operations.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, dismissed their plea for regularization on 17.04.2018, stating that they were not engaged in regular vacancies and had not completed sufficient full-time service. Subsequently, their services were abruptly terminated on 27.10.2018 without any show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and their subsequent termination, the appellants approached the High Court of Delhi, which also dismissed their writ petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants argued that their long, uninterrupted service, spanning over a decade and in some cases, two decades, demonstrated that their duties were permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the CWC offices.
• Nature of Duties: They contended that their responsibilities, including cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks, were not casual but central to ensuring a clean and functional work environment.
• Absence of Performance Issues: The appellants highlighted that they had consistently performed their duties satisfactorily without any warnings or adverse remarks.
• Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines: They argued that their appointments were not illegal but at most irregular and that long-serving employees in irregular appointments who fulfill essential functions are entitled to consideration for regularization, citing the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
• Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants pointed out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements had been regularized, which they argued was discriminatory.
• Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: They rejected the respondents’ reliance on formal educational requirements, stating that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work did not demand formal schooling.
• Equity and Fairness: The appellants submitted that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintained that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time.
• Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They asserted that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts, and without sanctioned vacancies, there could be no question of regularization.
• Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Criteria: Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the respondents argued that the appellants did not meet the conditions necessary for regularization.
• Educational Qualifications: The respondents contended that the appellants did not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment.
• Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: They argued that outsourcing the housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency was a legitimate administrative policy decision.
• No Fundamental Right to Regularization: The respondents underscored that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the long and uninterrupted service of the appellants could be brushed aside merely by labeling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual.
2. Whether the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices, thus necessitating their classification as regular posts.
3. Whether the termination of the appellants’ services was arbitrary and devoid of any justification.
4. Whether the argument relating to educational qualifications was tenable in the present context.
5. Whether the appellants were discriminated against in matters of regularization.
6. Whether the principles laid down in Uma Devi (supra) were correctly applied by the High Court and the Tribunal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India. The Court discussed this case in detail, clarifying that it does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State. The Court emphasized that the judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments, but not to deny regularization to employees with irregular appointments who had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period.
• Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 – Supreme Court of India. The Court cited this case to support the view 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.
• Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court cited this case to illustrate the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits, emphasizing that the nature of the work performed should determine employment status and the corresponding rights.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – The Court noted that the discriminatory behavior of the respondent department violated the principles of equality enshrined in these articles.

Authority Analysis

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]: The Court clarified that this judgment was not intended to penalize employees with long service and irregular appointments. The Court held that the High Court and Tribunal misinterpreted and misapplied the principles of Uma Devi (supra).
• Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230: The Court followed this judgment to support its view that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee who has performed duties like a regular employee for a long time.
• Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996): The Court cited this case to highlight that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits.
• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: The Court used these articles to emphasize that the discriminatory behavior of the respondent department violated the principles of equality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors, which can be analyzed based on the emphasis given in its reasoning:

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The Court emphasized the long and continuous service of the appellants, the essential nature of their duties, and the arbitrary nature of their termination. The Court also highlighted the misapplication of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment and the discriminatory treatment faced by the appellants. The factual aspects of the case, such as the duration of service and the nature of duties, weighed more heavily than the legal arguments, although the correct interpretation of Uma Devi (supra) was also a significant factor.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the appellants’ long and continuous service, performing essential duties, coupled with the arbitrary nature of their termination and discriminatory treatment, warranted regularization. The misapplication of Uma Devi (supra) was also a key factor in the Court’s decision.

The Court rejected the argument that the initial labels of part-time or contractual employment should override the substantive reality of long and continuous service. It also rejected the argument that the lack of educational qualifications was a valid reason to deny regularization, given the nature of the duties performed by the appellants. The Court emphasized that the principles of fairness and equity called for the regularization of the appellants’ services.

The Court also considered the broader implications of its decision, noting the misuse of temporary employment contracts and the need for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. The Court highlighted that engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, contravenes international labor standards and undermines employee morale.

“The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day -to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC).”

“The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Long-serving part-time employees performing essential duties are entitled to consideration for regularization.
• The initial label of employment (part-time, contractual) does not override the substantive reality of long and continuous service.
• Arbitrary termination of long-serving employees without notice is a violation of natural justice.
• Educational qualifications are not a valid reason to deny regularization for roles where such qualifications are not inherently required.
• Government departments must lead by example in providing fair and stable employment.
• The principles of Uma Devi (supra) should not be misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees.
• Outsourcing cannot be used as a shield to avoid regularization of long-serving employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court provided the following directions:

1. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 were quashed.
2. The appellants were to be taken back on duty forthwith, and their services were to be regularized forthwith.
3. The appellants were not entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they did not work, but they were entitled to continuity of service for that period, which would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that long-serving part-time employees performing essential duties are entitled to regularization, and the initial label of employment cannot override the substantive reality of long and continuous service. This judgment clarifies that the principles of Uma Devi (supra) should not be misinterpreted to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees with irregular appointments. This case reinforces the importance of fair labor practices and the rights of employees who have contributed significantly to an organization, regardless of their initial employment status. It sets a precedent for government departments to provide fair and stable employment, and not to misuse temporary employment contracts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. is a significant victory for long-serving part-time employees. The Court ordered the regularization of the appellants’ services, emphasizing that their long and continuous service, coupled with the essential nature of their duties, warranted equitable treatment. The judgment underscores the importance of fair labor practices and clarifies the correct interpretation of Uma Devi (supra), ensuring that it is not used to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This decision sets a strong precedent for government departments to provide fair and stable employment and to avoid the misuse of temporary employment contracts.