Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Long-Term Casual Worker in Postal Department

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed the regularization of a long-term casual worker in the Postal Department, setting aside previous orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Court held that the appellant, Ushaben Joshi, had been unfairly denied regularization despite working in the department for over three decades, while another employee with lesser tenure was granted permanent status.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a plea filed by Ushaben Joshi, who had been working as a ‘water woman’ in the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kutch Division, Bhuj, since February 1986. She sought regularization of her employment under the guidelines established in Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India (1988) and subsequent government circulars.

Despite her continuous service, the department refused to grant her permanent status, arguing that she was a contingency-paid part-time worker engaged for only four hours a day. Meanwhile, another employee, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who joined in 1991 in a similar capacity, was regularized and appointed as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in 2016.

Key Developments in the Case

In 2003, Ushaben Joshi filed a representation for regularization, which was rejected.
She challenged the decision before the CAT, which ruled in 2004 that the department should consider her case.
Despite CAT’s direction, the department rejected her claim again in 2004, stating she was ineligible under prevailing regulations.
She filed another petition in 2012 before CAT, which was dismissed in 2016.
The Gujarat High Court upheld CAT’s decision in 2018, prompting her to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel contended that:

She had served for over 30 years without a break, qualifying her for regularization under government policies.
The department’s decision to regularize Smt. Vaghela, a similarly placed employee with lesser tenure, while denying the same benefit to the petitioner, was discriminatory.
She had been performing the same duties as a regular employee but was denied the benefits granted to permanent workers.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Union of India opposed the petition, arguing that:

The petitioner was only a contingency-paid worker engaged for four hours a day.
The regularization of Smt. Vaghela was based on CAT’s direction and was an exception rather than a general rule.
The petitioner did not fulfill the conditions under the recruitment rules for regularization.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the facts and legal precedents, observed:

The department’s decision to regularize Smt. Vaghela but not Ushaben Joshi was unjustified and arbitrary.
The department’s argument that CAT had directed the regularization of Smt. Vaghela was misleading. CAT had only instructed the department to consider her case, while the actual decision to regularize her was taken independently.
There was no material difference in the nature of work performed by the petitioner and Smt. Vaghela, making the department’s distinction baseless.
The petitioner was entitled to equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the right to equality and protection from discrimination in public employment.

Key Judgment Excerpts

The Court stated:

“The decision to regularize Smt. Vaghela was an independent one taken by the department. The petitioner was placed in the same situation and yet was denied the same benefits, making it a clear case of discrimination.”

Additionally, the Court noted:

“The respondent’s argument that the petitioner was a part-time worker does not hold merit when another worker engaged in a similar role was regularized.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and CAT’s orders and directed:

The petitioner must be treated on par with Smt. Vaghela and regularized as an MTS.
The regularization must be effective from the date Smt. Vaghela was appointed as MTS.
All consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances, must be provided to the petitioner.
The entire process must be completed within three months.

Conclusion

The ruling underscores the importance of fairness in employment regularization and affirms that government authorities cannot arbitrarily differentiate between similarly placed employees. It reinforces the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring justice for workers who serve in temporary capacities for extended periods.

The decision sets a crucial precedent for casual and contingency-paid workers across various government departments, affirming their right to fair treatment and employment security.

Petitioner Name: Ushaben Joshi.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Bhuj, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 02-08-2024.

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

Download Judgment: ushaben-joshi-vs-union-of-india-and-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-08-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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