Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Long-Serving Temporary Employees: Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 332
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can temporary employees, who have served for over two decades, be denied regularization? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court of India judgment. The Court considered whether the initial terms of appointment should outweigh the actual course of employment, especially when duties performed are indistinguishable from those of permanent employees. The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants were initially appointed as Accounts Clerks in 1992, following a selection process that included written tests and interviews, pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991. These appointments were termed temporary and scheme-based. After their request for regularization was rejected by the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their applications on 21.11.2001, stating their appointments were temporary and scheme-specific, thus not entitling them to regularization. Subsequently, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which were also dismissed on 30.03.2016, upholding the Tribunal’s order. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1], which held that temporary employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court failed to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which were similar to those of regular employees. They highlighted their promotion by a Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and their continuous service for over 25 years as reasons for regularization. They contended that the High Court incorrectly applied the principles from Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.

The appellants’ arguments can be broken down into the following sub-arguments:

• The duties performed by the appellants were indistinguishable from those in permanent posts.
• The selection process mirrored that of regular recruitment.
• Their promotion process was overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee.
• They have sustained service for more than 25 years.

The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the initial terms of appointment, which were temporary and scheme-based, and the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), which stated that temporary employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the appellants, who were initially appointed on a temporary basis but have continued to serve for over 25 years, are entitled to regularization.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] – The High Court relied on this case to deny regularization, stating that temporary employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the appellants’ appointments were not back-door entries and that they had undergone a proper selection process.
• S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] – This case was cited in paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment, which distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments.
• R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] – This case was also cited in paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment, which distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments.
• B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] – This case was also cited in paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment, which distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] – The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the appellants’ appointments were not back-door entries and that they had undergone a proper selection process. The court held that Uma Devi (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case.
• S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] – These cases were cited in paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment, which distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments. The court considered the same.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The substantive nature of the appellants’ duties, which were indistinguishable from those of permanent employees.
• The fact that the appellants had undergone a selection process similar to that of regular recruitment.
• The appellants’ continuous service for over 25 years.
• The fact that the appellants’ promotion process was overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee.

The court emphasized that the initial terms of appointment should not outweigh the substantive rights accrued through long and continuous service. The court’s reasoning was based on principles of equity and fairness, as well as the intent behind employment regulations.

The Supreme Court stated, “The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts… constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme -specific nature of their initial engagement.”

The court also noted, “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.”

The court further stated, “the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts.”

Key Takeaways

• Temporary employees who have served for a long period and whose duties are similar to those of permanent employees may be entitled to regularization.
• The initial terms of appointment may not be the sole determinant of an employee’s status, especially if the actual nature of employment has evolved over time.
• The court emphasized that procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued through continuous service.
• This judgment could have implications for other similarly situated temporary employees seeking regularization.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to complete the process of regularization of the appellants within 3 months from the date of service of the judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that long-term continuous service in a role akin to that of a permanent employee can warrant regularization, even if the initial appointment was temporary. This decision distinguishes the facts of the case from those in Uma Devi (supra), emphasizing that procedural formalities at the outset cannot perpetually deny substantive rights accrued through continuous service. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the substantive nature of employment and continuous service should be given due consideration while deciding on regularization of employees and not only the initial terms of appointment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the appellants, who had served for over 25 years in roles similar to those of permanent employees, were entitled to be considered for regularization. The decision underscores the importance of considering the actual nature of employment and continuous service, rather than relying solely on the initial terms of appointment.