Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Ad-Hoc Employees in District Courts

The case of Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. is a landmark ruling concerning the regularization of ad-hoc employees in the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated December 13, 2019, set aside the termination of the appellants and ordered their reinstatement with continuity in service. The ruling reinforces the principle that employees serving for over a decade should be regularized if their appointments were initially made following legal procedures.

Background of the Case

The appellants were appointed on an ad-hoc basis in various district courts of Uttar Pradesh, following the creation of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship. Their initial appointments were made between 1999 and 2001 for a three-month term, which was repeatedly extended.

In 2001, an advertisement was issued for the direct recruitment of Class-III employees. The appellants challenged this recruitment process before the Allahabad High Court, which directed that their cases be considered along with other candidates and that their experience be taken into account.

However, the selection process was later canceled, and the appellants continued in service based on interim court orders. They later sought regularization, and in 2012, a committee led by an Additional District Judge recommended their regularization. The District Judge subsequently issued orders on November 9, 2012, regularizing their services.

However, in 2014, a successor District Judge declared the regularization orders as non-est and withdrew all benefits granted to the appellants. The matter reached the High Court, which dismissed their petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants contended that:

• The 2012 committee, after considering the relevant circulars and service rules, rightly recommended their regularization.
• The 2014 order canceling the regularization was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
• They had been working continuously for over a decade and were entitled to regularization under the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which allowed for a one-time regularization of employees with over ten years of service.
• The UP Regularization Rules, 2016, set December 31, 2001, as the cut-off date for regularization, and all the appellants had been appointed before this date.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the judiciary contended that:

• The appellants continued in service only because of interim orders and not because of any formal employment process.
• The 2012 committee’s recommendations were collusive and lacked transparency.
• The appellants could not claim regularization as a right since their appointments were not made in accordance with statutory recruitment rules.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the records and made the following observations:

• The committee’s recommendation for regularization was based on a circular issued by the Allahabad High Court’s Registrar General on November 5, 2009, which required the cessation of all ad-hoc appointments made after December 31, 2001.
• Since the appellants were appointed before this date and continued in service uninterruptedly, their case fell within the exception recognized in Umadevi.
• The 2014 cancellation of their regularization was done without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice principles.
• The High Court failed to consider the UP Regularization Rules, 2016, which supported the appellants’ claim.

The Court emphasized:

“The least that was required to be done was to follow the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. The orders passed by the District Judge on August 16, 2014, suffer from violation of natural justice.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and ruled:

“The orders dated August 16, 2014, passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, are quashed and set aside. The consequential order of termination dated September 23, 2017, is also quashed and set aside.”

The Court further directed:

• The appellants’ regularization orders dated November 9, 2012, are upheld.
• They shall be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service, including all terminal benefits.
• However, they shall not be entitled to back wages for the period they were out of employment.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for judicial and public sector employment:

• It reinforces that employees with over ten years of continuous service should be considered for regularization.
• It clarifies that service terminations without giving an opportunity to be heard violate natural justice.
• It strengthens employees’ rights in cases where administrative decisions revoke previously granted benefits.
• It ensures uniformity in applying regularization policies in government and judicial institutions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. provides much-needed clarity on the issue of regularizing long-serving ad-hoc employees. By upholding their regularization, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that arbitrary termination without following due process cannot be sustained. This ruling will serve as an important precedent for similar cases concerning ad-hoc employment in government departments and the judiciary.

Petitioner Name: Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 13-12-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Rajnish Kumar Mishra vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 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