Regularization of Services and Equal Treatment in Public Sector Employment

The case before the Supreme Court involves a group of appellants who had served for over 10 years in their respective positions but had not been regularized despite similar cases being granted regularization. The appellants, Jivanlal and others, filed appeals seeking regularization of their services, with the main argument being that they had been treated unfairly compared to other similarly situated employees who had received regularization orders. The appellants relied heavily on these previous decisions to support their case.

In the defense, the respondents, including the Principal Secretary, contended that the regularization orders given to other employees were illegal. The State had, in principle, decided to discontinue appointments to the post of Sweepers, effective from an order issued on December 10, 1997. However, despite this order, many other individuals in similar situations had still received regularization. This inconsistency in applying the policy became a central point in the case.

Justice Kurian Joseph, in his judgment, noted that the fact that many similarly situated individuals had been granted regularization raised a serious concern of discrimination. He emphasized that there was no justification for treating the appellants differently. Discriminating against the appellants in this manner would violate the principle of equal treatment under the law. He further noted that such selective regularization could lead to corruption, as it effectively created a ‘pick and choose’ policy, which was unacceptable.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, allowed the appeals and directed the respondents to grant regularization to the appellants, effective from the date they completed 10 years of service. This order ensured that the appellants received the same treatment as those who had been regularly employed after serving the same duration. The Court also ordered that the regularization process be completed within two months, with any consequential benefits being disbursed within one additional month.

To ensure compliance with the order, the Court added that if the disbursement was not completed within the prescribed time, the appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. Furthermore, the officials responsible for any delay in this process would be held personally liable for the same. This decision highlights the importance of fairness in public sector employment and the need for equal treatment of all employees.

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

Download Judgment: Jivanlal vs Pravin Krishna, Prin Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-12-2016.pdf