Ranjit Singh And ANR v. Union Of India And Other
!"#$%&'(%)%(*%"+& ,
!"#$%&'-(+&+!&.%"+& , ,
!"#$%&'!-/+0"%"+& , 1 2%'2%(+-%(0'3*%+(4!//5!"#$%&'
!// 6 %/073&-(+&+!&.%$%&'+44!//5!"#$%&'0&"(%0)+&)8340&7
9 :;< = <= << ; ****
!"# $%
&' # $%
!"# $% (
))&'# $% * + =0&"%%- +!"#3/8 ,(- .
'% /' $ ' %"**0 /'##' !%1' '
%2(2**2(3, 4'(-% %" '"5# !
! %'" ! ' %6/%(780983 ' %'
'"5 $% !20(((77: ;. '%(227(77+" ! ""%1'" ,*- < %'" '
$ %''"= %'" ! ! 9/ ' % (780983 ' "' %" / =9 "= "= '" ! ' =
- 2 - $%>'
'% $ /' /?9(@2@@9(77*, 4'+- "% '"= %"# $ " = '""%= " 9$ ! # % "" %'%'"'"='%#! % =# ' "$"$ %"(@#(0*( /' ,+- ' '%' = &$ =' '"%'"" ',%"' (227(77+"%%'"-# %'"A =9'! !
$ % " 1' " $% !'" % '" ' " &'9;$%% % '% ! # !$# $ % 4%'$ '% 4%"' % $%% $= "
!
= $ ! % !
% = "" "# %'""=!
/ "= '" "
="% =%"#'% /6 4 = '" / =9 > ' '
$ ' % " % $9B9$ ""='%'"! 6/#%""= ;"
#!
=%'"! $"= '" ,@- #"%'" (+# ! *227*2(7#'
" '"!%" = = !%%' ' ' ' . = ' %
- 3 - *@(2*2(0#!
% !'"=$ = C;% +3+ !
! = =!""%" '" 2(23*2(*'% # $ $ % # ="! " ' % "%= % ,:- < %'" ' '
% = != $ ?%
' ' % %' %# '% % =' %
'" "=%%' " $%# $%% '" ' ""= "" '
'%%! %"(@(0' %' 820A802 ?%
' ! ' '
'""%%" =!
" %'=&'< /?%% 4'! ,0-
)) &'# $% * + ' % D !=! %! 6/>1'# !;"
# "%# ! %' %'" " ' " ! E '"F# ' ! % /"9 "= '
'" "% $ *82+(77:"% %"= 6/, - '"#(73( ,3- ' $ % " % $% = %'92*2:(780#
- 4 - $
'"$%%' ' "%=6 4" % # 6/ %' %'"! " = /' "! ##4 = ' =$ ' *2(0 % ,8- % !'2*2@*2(8 #% " %'" ' %$= $"$ ' !
;"
" % 6/ $ '"5$%% ""="% "=/ = (77:# /' $ 232(*2*: %"" % ?%
%!
! % !% '' '"5.
232(*2*: ''9 "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the entire controversy revolves around as to whether the Delhi Regional Office of the respondents-FCI have regularised the services of Sh. Sukhbir Singh (SC), Sh. Irana G. Hegde (General) and Sh. Bhim Singh (General) in the year 1995 or not.
Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the said employees were engaged as casual labourers after the engagement of the petitioners and such persons have seemingly been regularised pursuant to some policy in the year 1995, however, the benefit thereof is not being extended to the petitioners. He further submits that the respondents-FCI in its reply filed to the application has stated that there has been no regularization, thus giving rise to a discrepant stand of the respondents themselves. For a fair assessment of the aforesaid contention, counsel for the respondents-FCI is directed to produce the record pertaining to the regularization of Sh. Sukhbir Singh (SC), Sh. Irana G. Hegde (General) and Sh. Bhim Singh (General) as referred to in Annexure P-38. Record pertaining to appointment of Watchmen consequent to Order No.Estt.3 (5)/ Class-IV/89/170 dated 04.04.1989 as to whether it was a case
- 5 - of fresh appointment or it was a case of appointment pursuant to an order of regularization.
List on 03.03.2025 for further consideration." ,7- ''% # 6/ '% 1' % 2+2+*2*:/'!
% !'' % %'" ! % '
,(2- .
" / 9(80::9/?9*2*: !
$ ! '"5 + # "=#
'
, /-G &> ,&"-G C
,&"- =(77:>H !;"
#! ' .
%2+2:*2(+, 4'+8-'% %# ' "
+2(((77@, 4'+7-# $% $ + !
! ! = %'" ! >H ! ;"
! '"5 (77: 88 %'"! ' "! '"5! '="%= ,((- .
96/ " "= *+(**2*: $ "%#"# $"=4 ' = =" %%'$!""! = ' ! " '"5 % = '" % %'" ! = "%= '"5$ . %%"' !
% ' %'
#!'" = 6/ ,(*- >' '
+ 232(*2*:! 6/ !;"
=!=% %' = % $! %" %'
4
4'8(@6' # '
'+@%'"!
- 6 - ! '"5 ' 6/ "= // ((@*223%2:28*228 ,(+- >"%'" '
% ,(@- .
%'" 4 " ! %"= = 6/ %'" ! (780I83# $ '' $% %' ! !
% /" "=% %"#!#'' %'"'" = /'# !"% '"=%"! ""!%! 4'" !
= '""= # = !'" " % " '" "= .
"% 9 /
%%"= %
'" $!" $%#$" "= / =9$%%.$" " # %% /
D" ! ' ! ! ! /'# $ *(2+*220#%6/ % /
D %
#!
"' 1'//2:28*228$
% !
%
! " ' ,(:- """# % ! '% ! # %= / ;D$// ((@*223# 6/ % '"%'"! " # %'"! 6/>1'# !;"
# '(77+I 7@ '"(77:! '=C9$"%=# '88
- 7 - %'" ?%
' , '- '" 2@2@(787 =% ""= "% %'" ! ' " % "A%% $ D%" ,(0- " " %# D "%
"% % % ' %'" %""= % " 9$ '" "=# !
$ ' =D %'' $% % !
= "" "=# = % '"9 '.
# (780I83#% "=%''$%!"" (770I73# "" 1'"= % = % " = ' 1' "% = 4/' >
/'#!
% " 9 '" '% ! # %""= !
""= "% "= $ '" ' "=# ' ='" '%%$" %"(@(0 ,(3- .
% "" ! %" ! !"# "$ !%
&'
( ) %# !
/'# 4 %1'% $ '' $% "=9! ! $ ! " % ! ' 4 '"'4 "%=.
%''"=$ 6; '*:=#
! ! '"# "'# '""%= !%' '!
% ""="%$'
- 8 - ! '"5J %! % ! '"""''' %# /' % % D %'% 4"$
" 9 '" '% %%'
% %" (@ (0# E% $ ! F% " "! D%' "%= " " ,(8- %"%4" 9$ "=9! %%'" "=# /' * + )
( ) %
!"# # "$ %% %# % +((**2*: "= % %% ! '"%' "= %%''$% "! " ' "% ! " ' E ' % '= ! !
$"$%%# % % %"%= '#F %" /' '% ! ""= " "= =" "" E"=! F#E%%'"FE% F!
"! '"! .
/'' %' "= 9" "" # !
" ' ' " '"#E ' $ #F '% %'% '4" $" %"(@(0.
"$4% '
'%'9 "41. The Court is of the view that once the State Government formulates and publishes a regularization policy, it is under an obligation to implement the
- 9 - same, particularly in a socialistic welfare State where hundreds of similarly situated employees have been considered. The State, being a model employer, is expected to act as a parent towards its employees, especially where the employees belong to an illiterate class and the lowest strata of society. In such circumstances, the State is expected to act promptly and not allow its officials to remain in a state of inaction, thereby compelling employees to approach the Court for enforcement of their legal rights, which otherwise ought to have been considered in due course on the basis of the record available with the respondents in a transparent and fair manner, thereby rendering the cause of action as a continuing one.
Therefore, the plea of delay and laches is wholly misconceived and cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive and accrued rights of the petitioner, which ought to have been considered by the respondents on the basis of the record available with them in a transparent, fair, and non-arbitrary manner. Accordingly, the argument raised on behalf of the respondents also stands rejected.
42. There is, finally, a moral vocabulary that is not foreign to Indian constitutionalism and it runs parallel to our civilisational idea of Rajdharma that the ruler's foremost duty is protection and fairness to those who sustain the State's functioning. Our ancient texts repeatedly place upon the sovereign an obligation to act with nyaya (justice), anrishamsya (non-cruelty), and balanced governance and the idea of lokasangraha as discussed in the Bhagvad Gita's reminds public power that action must serve social stability and the common good, not merely administrative convenience. They are interpretive lamps that illuminate why a welfare State cannot, in good conscience or good law, keep citizens in endless precarity while taking uninterrupted benefit of their service. When the State engages people to serve the public often in the lowest rungs, with the least bargaining power it must remember that governance is not merely about outputs but it is also about how those outputs are produced.
43. Therefore, the legally sustainable position is that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right where the initial entry is illegal or plainly unconstitutional but where the engagement is long, continuous, against sanctioned vacant posts of duly qualified persons, the State is under a constitutional duty to undertake fair consideration and to complete the onetime regularization exercise mandated in Umadevi (supra) as explained in M.L. Kesari (supra). And where the State's defence is merely a change of label "contractual" while it continues to extract perennial work for years,
- 10 - courts are entitled to pierce the veil of form, test the action on the anvil of the Constitutional ethics, and prevent the welfare State from becoming an architect of injustice. Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India do not merely regulate entry into public service but they govern the entire life cycle of public employment of State. The constitutional promise is not exhausted once an employee crosses the threshold of appointment but it is a dynamic guarantee to safeguard against arbitrary action of the State including denial of legitimate consideration.
44. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service to the respondent department for nearly three decades. Notwithstanding the existence of multiple regularization policies under which the petitioner was prima facie eligible, the respondentState failed to accord his case due consideration or extend the benefit of regularization. Having derived benefit from the services of the petitioner over such an extended period, the State cannot now evade its constitutional and administrative obligations by resorting to procedural objections of its own creation.
Conclusion
45. For the reasons stated above, all the above said writ petitions are hereby allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' claims for regularization, if any, are set aside. This judgment shall govern all connected matters with similar facts.
46. The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the petitioners in accordance with the law and under the relevant regularization policy in force when the petitioner first became eligible, including, but not limited to, the policies of 1993, 1996, 2003, and 2011.
47. However, the petitioners who do not fall under the above policies but have rendered services of more than 10 years as on date i.e. 31.12.2025, the respondents are directed to grant them the benefit of regularization.
48. The respondents are also directed to release all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay, arrears thereof alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due til its actual realization.
49. The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment." ,(7- %'
'"$ %'" 4# %' % ! %" "= !
$ '' $% 6/ % (780I83 ! " %
- 11 - '#!
'!% ">
/' = /D ! /
# !
' %' ' $"= '".
" =' " $ CD!%'9#4%' '% %'#"%$%"'"$ ""!
"%' '" D" ' " "
#$"4" "% = %%'" ,*2- ,% & -%
*%% ) ..'
/$# K' L , %'"'- ! '"= "% *2(* '
'""%%%$%% '!"= ="= E%%'"F # !
% ! $ % !
" '""9 ! # % " '" # '"= ' ' !"A '"5 .
" '% % ' >
/' K
! ' # %%'"# =
'" .
' /' " %'"'""= % '
" 9 %%'" =$ % '"# '% %'% "= =# $"$ %" (@ (0# % ! " % " "=# % '1'" ! !
E " "= " F ' " %%'" '" % ' !$ ' "
'= 4"% % "" '"
- 12 - $" " % ! 4 9 .
"$ 4% '
'%'9 "Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2.In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants' engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3.In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4.We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 13.5.Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one.
An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6.This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the
- 13 - duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7.In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9.The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
- 14 -
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment." ,*(-
"= %"'% $%%"!# %"= " 9 '"" 9$ "=! "'" '%%'% % $ ! = '" ' 4 ! ,**- $! $%'# !""! '
2(2**2(3% D%" '" A = = '%'" .
9/ % ' # 9 '# '" 4% %""= "%
- 15 - " 9$ %'"! ' # =% '" A $" "/ =9A?%
1'$" !
% % '""" " "= % >
/'D(728(77@# % 20(((77: /
%
27(**22: = '% " '" "" %1'" $% = 4 %'= " ,*+- .
" % " "" %1'" #%"' 4=# " ! M0N '
% '""%'""5 ,*@- .
'" "" ! %%%= , , "
=0&"%%- +!"#3/
!"#%
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
:
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
:
Yes/No