⚖️ Supreme Court: Regularisation Cannot Be Denied to Casual Workers When Similarly Situated Employees Were Granted Relief

In a significant service law ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the doctrine laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) cannot be misapplied to deny regularisation where similarly situated employees have already been granted such relief.

The case concerned casual workers engaged in the Income Tax Department, Gwalior, since the 1990s. Despite having rendered continuous service and performing perennial duties essential to the department’s functioning, their plea for regularisation was rejected by the Tribunal and later upheld by the High Court. The rejection was based on the ground that they did not complete 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 the cut-off date often referred to under Umadevi (3).

However, the facts told a different story

📌 Background: Unequal Treatment Within the Same Department

The appellants were part of the official list of daily wage workers as on 31.10.2005. Crucially, other employees from the same list and department had already been regularised pursuant to earlier Supreme Court decisions in Ravi Verma v. Union of India and Raman Kumar v. Union of India.

Despite being identically placed, the present appellants were denied the same benefit.

This differential treatment became the core constitutional issue before the Supreme Court

⚖️ Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Court made several important observations:

• The work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the department.
• After terminating such workers, the department outsourced the same work clearly demonstrating that the posts were necessary and continuing in nature.
• The principle in Umadevi (3) applies to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments it cannot be used to deny regularisation in cases of irregular (but not illegal) appointments.
• Most importantly, discrimination between similarly situated employees is constitutionally impermissible under Article 14.

The Court emphasised that once a set of employees from the same category, performing identical work, had been regularised pursuant to judicial orders, denying the same relief to others from the same list would amount to arbitrary and unequal treatment.

🏛️ Final Directio

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court directed:

• Regularisation of the appellants with effect from 01.07.2006.
• Grant of consequential benefits.
• Compliance within three months.

📚 Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is important for three reasons:

1. Clarification of Umadevi (3) – The judgment reiterates that Umadevi cannot be mechanically applied. Courts must examine whether appointments were illegal or merely irregular.
2. Equality Principle Reinforced – If one group of similarly situated employees is regularised, others cannot be denied relief arbitrarily.
3. Substance Over Technicalities – Long years of continuous service in perennial posts cannot be ignored when the department itself continues to require the work.

For service law practitioners, this ruling strengthens the argument that parity and non-discrimination remain central constitutional mandates, even in regularisation matters.

At Shekhawat Legal, we regularly handle service law disputes involving regularisation, seniority, promotion, and wrongful denial of benefits. If you or your organisation is facing a similar issue, a carefully structured legal strategy can make the difference.

#SupremeCourt #ServiceLaw #Regularisation #UmaDevi #EmploymentLaw #Article14 #EqualityBeforeLaw