Supreme Court: Denial of Equal Treatment to Daily Wagers Is “Violation of Equity”
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that selective regularisation of daily wage workers, while denying the same benefit to others doing identical work for decades, amounts to discrimination and a violation of equity.
The case involved six employees of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission—five support staff and one driver—who had worked continuously since the late 1980s and early 1990s but were never given permanent status. Despite repeated recommendations by the Commission to create posts for them, the State Government rejected the proposals, citing “financial constraints.”
After years of litigation, including dismissals by the Allahabad High Court, the employees finally found relief before a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
---
Key Observations of the Court
On unequal treatment: The Court found that others in the same Commission with similar tenure and duties had been regularised earlier, while the appellants were left out. Such selective action, it said, “corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.”
On financial excuses: The State’s repeated rejection on vague grounds of financial burden was called “arbitrary and unreasonable.” The Court reminded that a model public institution cannot issue “non-speaking rejections” when lives and livelihoods are at stake.
On misusing precedent: The High Court’s reliance on Umadevi (which restricts regularisation of irregular appointments) was held to be misplaced. This case, the bench said, was not about bypassing constitutional norms but about arbitrary state inaction despite decades of genuine service.
---
Final Directions
The Supreme Court ordered:
1. Regularisation with retrospective effect from April 24, 2002.
2. Creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants.
3. Payment of arrears—the difference between regular pay and actual pay since 2002—within three months.
4. Extension of benefits to employees who retired or passed away during litigation.
5. Compliance affidavit to be filed by a senior official within four months.
---
Why This Matters
For the appellants, this judgment is more than just legal relief—it is a recognition of their dignity after over three decades of uncertainty. For countless other daily wage and ad-hoc workers, it sets a reminder that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot exploit long-term labour under the guise of temporary arrangements.
The ruling sends a clear message: equity and fairness cannot be denied through selective recognition or bureaucratic delay.
