The Supreme Court criticised long-term use of temporary workers in recurring government roles, calling it unfair and unconstitutional. It ordered regularisation of UP Higher Education employees, stressing dignity, fairness, and transparency in public employment.
New Delhi: On Aug 19, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the practice of keeping government employees on temporary or ad-hoc basis for long years while they continue to perform regular and essential duties.
The court said such “ad-hocism” in public employment destroys the trust of people in governance and violates the constitutional promise of equality.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while regularising the services of certain employees of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission, observed that the state cannot run its administration by exploiting workers under temporary labels while depending on them for permanent and recurring tasks.
The bench reminded governments of their constitutional responsibility, saying:
“We think it necessary to recall that the state (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices.”
The court came down heavily on the misuse of temporary or daily wage appointments, stating:
“Long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.”
It also rejected financial excuses for such practices, stressing that financial problems cannot justify unfair treatment of workers. The judges said:
“Financial-stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that ‘ad-hocism’ thrives where administration is opaque.”
The Supreme Court directed that all departments should maintain proper and transparent records of their staffing needs and employment practices.
It said:
“The state departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work was perennial.”
On the issue of excuses of financial constraints, the bench noted:
“If the ‘constraint’ was invoked by the government, the record ought to show what alternatives were considered, why similarly-placed workers were treated differently and how the chosen course aligned with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The court emphasised that the impact of such insecure employment on workers’ lives must be taken seriously, adding:
“Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.”
The judges also highlighted that public employment should always be organised with fairness and respect for the dignity of labour. They said:
“While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness.”
The bench further observed that a government cannot reject demands for regularisation on vague excuses of financial issues while still relying heavily on daily wage workers for essential duties. According to the order:
“Non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of financial constraints, ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, did not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.”
The matter came before the apex court after employees engaged by the UP Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992 challenged an Allahabad High Court ruling that denied their regularisation.
The High Court had dismissed their plea saying they were only daily-wage employees and that the Commission had no rules for making them permanent.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Warns Police: Don’t Name Sexual Offence Victims Even in FIRs
However, the Supreme Court overturned this and ruled in favour of the employees. It directed their services be regularised with effect from February 24, 2002. The order stated:
“For this purpose, the state and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On sexual offence
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
