Summary
The Court held that denying a municipal employee regularisation, while similarly placed colleagues including juniors received it, violated equality in the particular circumstances. Earlier court orders, the service-book entry and existing absorption resolutions supported his claim. The appeal was allowed and back wages and benefits from 1991 were awarded with ten per cent interest.
Issues
- Whether exclusion of the appellant from regularisation, despite earlier proceedings and absorption of similarly placed co-employees, violated constitutional equality.
- Whether Umadevi barred relief on the particular record and what benefits followed after the appellant’s retirement.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16(1), Constitution of IndiaThe Court found unequal denial of regularisation unjustified given the prior court proceedings, absorption recorded in the service book, existing resolutions and benefit extended to comparable colleagues. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Held
- The appellant’s case involved more than length of casual service. Earlier proceedings recorded absorption, his service book supported it, and the respondents had acknowledged resolutions awaiting approval. Other comparable employees, including juniors, had been regularised. Leaving him out on this record violated equality before law and equality of opportunity in State employment. (¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 27)
- The Court distinguished Umadevi on the particular facts, including the earlier absorption proceedings and unequal treatment of co-employees. It rejected reliance on that decision to deny this appellant relief; the holding did not declare a general right to regularisation based merely on long casual employment. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The administrative refusal based on the later High Court direction against implementing regularisation circulars did not answer the appellant’s earlier absorption record and the existing resolutions. The appellant, who had retired in 2021, was held entitled to back wages and benefits from 1991 with ten per cent interest. (¶¶ 25, 27, 28)
- The appeal was allowed and the impugned Division Bench judgment set aside. No costs were ordered. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside. Appellant held entitled to back wages and benefits from 1991 with ten per cent interest. No order as to costs.