Perennial Work Cannot Be Performed Perpetually by Temporary Hands – Supreme Court Orders Regularisation of Daily-Wage Workers

“The State Cannot Balance Budgets on the Backs of Those Performing Recurring Public Functions” – In a powerful and precedent-setting decision delivered Supreme Court of India condemned the decades-long ad hoc engagement of daily-wage workers by a public institution despite their continuous service in performing core governmental functions.

The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by six daily-wage workers employed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and holding that “the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness.”

Ruling that the State’s rejection of proposals for post creation was unjustified, the Court directed full regularisation, creation of supernumerary posts, and payment of arrears with interest, while reaffirming that the “long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration.”

The appellants were engaged as Class III and IV workers, including peons and a driver, by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. Despite serving for over three decades and performing continuous, essential duties such as dispatch work, office support, and driving, they remained classified as daily-wage workers.

The Commission made repeated proposals in 1991 and 1999 for the creation of 14 permanent posts, recognising the long-standing need for such positions and seeking the State Government’s sanction. However, in both instances, the State refused, citing vague “financial constraints” and a purported ban on post creation.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Allahabad High Court in 2000, which dismissed their petition, relying on the absence of regularisation rules and vacancies. A special appeal was similarly dismissed in 2017, prompting the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The central issue before the Court was whether the State's repeated refusal to sanction posts—despite long-standing reliance on the appellants to perform perennial ministerial duties—was arbitrary, and whether such refusal could withstand scrutiny under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court firmly held that the High Court failed to adjudicate the principal issue, noting:

“The Courts below failed to adjudicate the principal challenge to the State’s refusal and the legality of its reasons. In our opinion, such non-consideration amounts to a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” [Para 7]

It rejected the simplistic approach of treating the issue as one of “regularisation in absence of rules”, observing instead:

“The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running.” [Para 1]

The Court criticised the State’s “non-speaking” refusals, remarking: “A 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, does not meet the standard of reasonableness.” [Para 8]

The Court underscored that these workers were performing permanent functions and their duties were “integral to the Commission’s functioning since their engagement”. It found that the claim of no vacancy was disproved by RTI replies and court documents showing existing vacant posts and prior regularisation of similarly situated employees.

“Selective regularisation... while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties... is a clear violation of equity.” [Para 10]

Misapplication of Umadevi (2006) and Reliance on Recent Precedents

The Supreme Court emphatically clarified that the High Court had misapplied the principles of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) in denying relief. It stated:

“Umadevi does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order.” [Para 11]

The judgment drew support from the Court’s more recent rulings in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), which cautioned against using Umadevi to justify prolonged, exploitative ad hocism:

“Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years... Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices.” [Cited in Para 11]

Structural Changes Cannot Extinguish Accrued Rights

The Court rejected the State's argument that the 2024 merger of the Commission and new outsourcing policy could bar relief:

“Supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings... A later policy to outsource Class IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals.” [Para 12]

Further, the claim that the workers were protected only by interim orders was dismissed:

“Interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement... It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication.” [Para 13]

Court’s Binding and Time-Bound Directions

Having found clear violation of constitutional principles, the Supreme Court issued specific and binding directions to prevent further injustice.

“Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance.” [Para 20]

The Court ordered: “All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002... The State and the successor establishment shall create supernumerary posts... Arrears shall be paid within three months with 6% compound interest in case of default.” [Para 19]

It further directed that: “Retired and deceased appellants shall receive all dues and recalculated pensionary benefits... A sworn compliance affidavit must be filed within four months.” [Para 19]

 “A Constitutional Employer Cannot Evade Fairness”

The judgment delivers a resounding reminder to the State about its duties as a constitutional employer, stating:

“The State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer... It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.” [Para 17]

“Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices.” [Para 17]

In affirming the constitutional values of fairness, equality, and dignity of labour, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that “ad-hocism” and “outsourcing” cannot become state instruments of long-term exploitation.

The judgment is poised to serve as a watershed precedent for thousands of similarly placed daily-wage and contractual workers across the country, whose service spans decades but whose employment remains shrouded in precariousness.

Date of Decision: August 19, 2025