Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to End Discrimination Against Ad-Hoc Employees in Allahabad High Court: Orders Reinstatement and Regularizationi

"Label of 'Ad-hoc' Cannot Override Equal Treatment When Appointees Are Similarly Situated" – On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark decision delivered in Ratnank Mishra & Others v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, allowed a batch of civil appeals challenging the denial of regularization to employees appointed to Class III posts in the Allahabad High Court. The Court ruled that the distinction between regularized and non-regularized employees based solely on labels in appointment letters—such as “ad-hoc”—was irrational and arbitrary, amounting to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022 and connected appeals, overturning previous orders of the Allahabad High Court, and invoked the Court’s plenary powers under Article 142 to direct reinstatement and regularization of the appellants with all consequential service benefits except back wages.

"Once Appointments Are Made Under Valid Legal Authority, Classification Based on Appointment Labels Is Unconstitutional"

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Allahabad High Court, as an employer, could justify disparate treatment among similarly appointed employees by relying on appointment letters designating some as “ad-hoc”, despite the fact that all were appointed under the same constitutional rules and authority.

The Court emphatically rejected the High Court's reasoning, stating:

“Merely because the appointment orders contained different stipulations regarding the nature of appointment i.e., whether labeled ad-hoc or not, or whether containing a condition for examination or not, cannot be a rational basis for differential treatment for purpose of regularization when the channel of such appointments is identical.”

The judgment underscores that constitutional equality (Article 14) demands not only formal legal similarity but also substantive fairness in public employment, especially by constitutional institutions like High Courts.

Arbitrary Denial of Regularization Despite Identical Service History

The appellants, who were appointed as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks between 2004 and 2005, challenged their termination and denial of regularization, even though other similarly placed employees had been confirmed and promoted.

All appointments, including those of the appellants, were made by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court under the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, specifically Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45, which empower the Chief Justice to appoint staff in the High Court establishment.

However, while some employees were regularized based on administrative committee recommendations, the appellants were excluded from this benefit on the sole ground that their appointment letters bore the label “ad-hoc” and their appointments fell after the cut-off date under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules, 1979.

Supreme Court's Critique of the Committee's Reasoning and High Court Orders

The Supreme Court found that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had created artificial and baseless categories among employees who were uniformly appointed through the same constitutional channel, only to justify regularization of some while excluding others.

In a detailed comparison of three categories (A, B, and C), the Court highlighted:

• Category A: Ad-hoc appointees regularized because their appointment letters mentioned an exam that was never held.
• Category B: Appointees without “ad-hoc” in their letters regularized solely based on that omission.
• Category C: The appellants, denied regularization only because their appointment letters labeled them “ad-hoc”.

Calling this approach "arbitrary, unreasonable and superficial", the Court held:

“Such arbitrariness and unreasonableness becomes evident in light of the principles as enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India.”

It further observed that “all three categories of employees were appointed through the same channel... sans following the regular recruitment process.” Hence, any attempt to treat them differently on the basis of semantics in appointment letters “violates the fundamental principle that equals must be treated equally.”

High Courts Must Lead by Example in Upholding Constitutional Values

The Supreme Court also delivered a strong message to constitutional institutions on administrative fairness:

“High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles within their own administrative functioning as well.”

Such discriminatory actions by the High Court, the apex court warned, “pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness.”

Article 142 Invoked to Secure Complete Justice

Though the Court acknowledged that regularization of ad-hoc employees is a policy domain, it held the present case to be exceptional, citing:

• Over a decade of service by the appellants,
• Discontinuance of service in 2015 without fault,
• Manifest and unjustified discrimination, and
• Identical nature of appointments under valid constitutional rules.

Accordingly, invoking Article 142, the Court directed:

“Appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were working at the time of their discontinuance; their services shall be regularized after one year from their respective dates of appointment; and they shall receive all consequential benefits excluding salary for the period they have not worked.”

Relief Granted Not to Be Treated as Precedent

Significantly, the Court confined its ruling only to the appellants' case, making it clear:

“The directions issued hereinabove and the observations made in the present judgment are limited to the facts and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner or form be treated as a precedent.”

A Timely Judicial Reminder Against Institutional Discrimination

This judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional equality and administrative fairness, particularly within judicial institutions themselves. The Supreme Court’s firm stance that “labels in appointment letters” cannot be the basis for denying equal service benefits is a significant message against form-over-substance discrimination in employment jurisprudence.

It also marks a rare but justified invocation of Article 142 to undo institutional injustice, showing that when “complete justice” is at stake, constitutional courts are not helpless in the face of technical or administrative rigidity.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2025