LexDHARAM SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1026 : 2025 INSC 998 Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018) 19 August 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants’ principal challenge to the State’s refusals to sanction posts and treating the matter as a mere plea for regularization, and, if so, given the appellants’ long and undisputed service, what appropriate relief ought to follow from this Court. Headnotes† Service Law – Regularization – State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the perennial nature of duties and long service – Entitlement to regularization – Appellants (Class-IV employees-peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged between 1989 and 1992 by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission – Regularization denied by the State on financial grounds and a ban on creation of new posts – Writ petition filed by the appellants, dismissed by Single Judge – Order affirmed by Division Bench – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – The nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission’s functioning ever since their engagement – The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those who received regularisation undermine the High Court’s conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed – Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized violates equity – Moreover, the Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants – Consistent internal demand, * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1027 Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants’ labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial – To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength cannot be sustained – State’s refusals in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work are unsustainable, quashed – A non- speaking rejection on a generic plea of “financial constraints”, ignoring functional necessity and the employer’s own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution – Appellants entitled to regularisation; comprehensive directions issued – U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. [Paras 8-10,15, 19] Service Law – Claim for regularization – Effect of reorganisation/ structural change, if any – Appellants (Class-IV employees- peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged between 1989 and 1992 by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission – Denied regularization despite their long and undisputed service – Commission inter alia referred to a supervening reorganisation in 2024 whereby it was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing: Held: Supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings – The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime – A later policy to outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades. [Para 12] Service Law – Public employment – Perennial and recurring work – Need for sanctioned posts – Duty of State – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16 and 21. [Paras 17, 18, 20] Case Law Cited Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. v. Umadevi & Others [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 – held inapplicable. 1028 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Jaggo v. Union of India [2024] 12 SCR 1235 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025] 1 SCR 1427 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 – referred to. List of Acts U.P. Higher Education Services Com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.