Casual Workers’ Rights: Supreme Court Upholds Regularization in Group ‘D’ Posts

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Union of India vs. Sant Lal & Ors., a significant case concerning the regularization of casual workers in Group ‘D’ posts under the administrative control of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Court upheld the claim of long-serving casual workers for regularization and directed adherence to the seniority list.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around eighteen casual workers who had been engaged in the Regional Training Institute, Allahabad, since 1986. Despite working for over a decade, they were not granted permanent employment. In 2004, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization.

The CAT, in its judgment dated January 6, 2006, directed the authorities to:

Prepare a seniority list of casual workers based on the number of days worked.
Consider regularizing them against existing or future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts.
Continue engaging them for daily work based on seniority.

The Union of India challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the appeal in March 2006, affirming that there was no positive direction for regularization but only a consideration of their seniority.

In 2008, the casual workers moved the CAT again, claiming that despite the Tribunal’s order, junior workers had been regularized while they remained unconsidered. The Tribunal, in April 2013, directed that the senior casual workers must be regularized first. The Union of India challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the CAT’s ruling.

The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the government was obligated to regularize casual workers with long service.
Whether the Tribunal’s direction to follow seniority in regularization was legally justified.
Whether the workers’ claim was barred by the Uma Devi judgment (2006), which restricted automatic regularization.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Union of India)

There were no available vacancies for regularization.
The 2011 Indian Audit and Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules had replaced Group ‘D’ posts, making the claims invalid.
The workers had no vested right to regularization under the law.
The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) barred regularization of casual workers.

Respondents’ Arguments (Casual Workers)

The Tribunal’s order had attained finality, and the government had already regularized junior workers.
The seniority list was ignored, causing discrimination among similarly placed workers.
The workers had served for over twelve years, qualifying for regularization under Malathi Das v. Suresh (2014) and Prem Ram v. Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam (2015).
The Supreme Court had allowed one-time regularization for workers with over ten years of service.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, ruled in favor of the casual workers.

Regarding the Uma Devi judgment, the Court clarified:

“The judgment in Uma Devi does not bar consideration of regularization for workers who have been in service for over ten years.”
“Where the government has chosen to regularize junior employees, denying the same benefit to senior workers is arbitrary.”

On the obligation to follow seniority, the Court held:

“Once a decision was taken to regularize workers, the principle of fairness demanded that seniority be respected.”
“It is arbitrary to selectively grant benefits to some while excluding others similarly placed.”

Regarding the change in recruitment rules, the Court noted:

“The workers had been engaged long before the 2011 rules came into effect.”
“Government policies cannot be used to discriminate against senior employees.”

The Court found that:

The Union of India had failed to justify why it ignored seniority.
The casual workers were entitled to the same treatment as their juniors.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and directed:

The seniority list must be strictly followed for regularization.
Workers eligible for regularization must be accommodated in existing vacancies.
Workers who had reached retirement age should be granted retirement benefits based on notional pay fixation.
The process must be completed within three months.
Age relaxation should be granted where necessary.

Legal and Social Implications

The judgment protects casual workers’ rights from unfair government practices.
It ensures that seniority is respected in regularization cases.
It prevents the government from selectively regularizing only a few workers.
The ruling strengthens labor laws by enforcing fairness in employment policies.

This case serves as a crucial precedent for government employees facing discriminatory employment policies and reinforces the right to equal treatment in public employment.

Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: Sant Lal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 08-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Sant Lal & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category