Supreme Court directs regularisation of daily wagers, holding selective benefits violate equity and constitutional rights.
Case in NewsThe Supreme Court on selective regularisation of daily wagers held denial of benefits to similarly placed workers discriminatory . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: DHARAM SINGH & ORS. vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court of India heard the appeal of five Class-IV employees and a driver who had been working since 1989–1992 with the Commission . Despite decades of service, their plea for regularisation was rejected citing financial constraints while other similarly situated workers were granted the benefit . The High Court upheld this action, prompting the appeal .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles.
Key Aspects
The Court analysed the unfair treatment of the appellants who continued on daily wages while peers were regularised .
- Appellants engaged in perennial work since 1989–1992 on daily wage basis .
- State cited financial limits and ban on new posts for rejection .
- Other similarly situated employees were regularised against vacant posts .
- High Court affirmed the State’s decision, leading to appeal before the Supreme Court .
Legal Insights
The Court emphasised constitutional and statutory protections against arbitrary discrimination in service matters .
- Article 14, Constitution of India – ensures equality before law .
- Article 16, Constitution of India – guarantees equality in public employment .
- Article 21, Constitution of India – protects dignity and livelihood of workers .
- State as a model employer must create sanctioned posts, regularise workers and comply with judicial directions .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court held that selective regularisation violated principles of equity . It directed immediate regularisation of the appellants with effect from 2002, with full back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits . Where posts are unavailable, the State must create supernumerary posts to absorb them without delay . The appeal was accordingly allowed .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
