State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court

"To disregard or discriminate against such individuals in matters of service recognition would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that once a judicial direction for the regularisation of employees attains finality, the State cannot circumvent its implementation by framing a scheme that offers only temporary engagement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the obligation of the State to act as a model employer flows directly from Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court set aside an ISRO scheme that failed to create permanent posts as previously mandated by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The appellants were daily-wage gang labourers engaged at ISRO’s Mahendragiri Unit between 1991 and 1997 for tasks like loading and unloading materials. In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to frame a scheme by creating sanctioned posts to engage these workers on a permanent footing. While this direction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2011, the respondents subsequently framed the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012," which only provided for temporary engagement without post creation, leading to the current challenge.

The primary question before the court was whether the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012" complied with the letter and spirit of the Tribunal’s 2010 mandate for permanent post creation. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the High Court was justified in reopening the merits of the regularisation claim by applying the Umadevi precedent after the issue had already attained finality.

Mandate Was To Create Permanent Posts, Not Just Regulate Temporary Work

The Court observed that the core of the Tribunal’s 2010 order was the transition of workers from an ad-hoc arrangement to a structured regime founded upon duly created posts. The bench noted that any scheme falling short of this requirement, by merely regulating engagement without providing for post creation, constitutes a failure to comply with judicial directions. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal intended to bring an end to the practice of engaging labourers on a purely daily-wage basis for work of a recurring nature.

Court Rejects Dilution Of Binding Judicial Directions

Upon reviewing Clause 4 of the "Gang Labourers Scheme," the Court found that the engagement contemplated by the respondents remained "temporary" in nature. The bench held that this was clearly at variance with the earlier directions which stood affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The respondents had failed to fully comply with the directions which had attained finality, opting instead for a scheme that lacked the substance of the original judicial mandate for permanent status.

"The respondents adopted a course that effectively diluted the substance of those directions, prolonging the dispute for years."

High Court Erred In Applying 'Umadevi' To Reopen Settled Issues

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the Madras High Court’s approach in applying the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi precedent to deny the workers' claims. The bench held that the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction by re-entering the merits of whether the appellants’ services could be regularised. Since the direction for regularisation had already attained finality in the first round of litigation, it was "wholly impermissible" for the High Court to revisit the question of the legality of the initial appointment.

Scope Of Subsequent Litigation Is Limited To Compliance

The Court clarified that the scope of consideration in subsequent proceedings is strictly confined to examining whether previous directions have been followed. By reopening the merits, the High Court ignored the fact that the initial findings regarding the perennial nature of work and the need for permanent posts were no longer open to challenge. The bench noted that the State cannot use subsequent litigation to relitigate issues that have been conclusively decided against them in earlier rounds.

State’s Obligation As A Model Employer Under Article 14

Emphasizing the constitutional duty of the State, the Court remarked that the guarantee of equality under Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and mandates fairness in public employment. The bench criticized the respondents for compelling litigants, often from marginalized backgrounds, to traverse a prolonged legal journey to secure their just rights. The Court noted that even in sensitive establishments like those governed by the Official Secrets Act, security concerns must be balanced with the fair treatment of long-serving workers.

"Denying them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service status, while reaping the benefits of their labour, strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment."

Recognizing The Contributions Of Group-D Workers To National Missions

In a poignant observation, the Court highlighted that the success of India's space missions is the result of a "seamless chain of support" involving even the most junior staff. Referring to the early days of ISRO when rocket components were moved on bicycles, the Court stated that the "invisible yet indispensable" contributions of gang labourers are essential to the nation's scientific advancement. The bench held that discriminating against such individuals undermines the collective ethos of national scientific achievement.

"To disregard or discriminate against such individuals... would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond."

Final Directions For Regularisation And Retrospective Benefit

The Supreme Court set aside the "Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012" to the extent that it contradicted the Tribunal’s mandate for permanent engagement. The bench directed the respondents to regularise the services of the appellants and grant them permanent status with effect from September 9, 2010. This date was chosen as it represented the outer limit fixed by the Tribunal for framing the compliance scheme in the original proceedings.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of the Madras High Court. It further directed that the benefit of this judgment shall enure to all similarly situated persons engaged under the 2012 Scheme, ensuring that the relief is not limited only to those who approached the Court. The respondents were given four weeks to implement the directions and formalise the permanent status of the concerned workers.

Date of Decision: 29 April 2026