⚖️ Supreme Court on Regularisation in Public Employment ⚖️
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: August 2025
Keywords: Regularisation, Daily Wage Workers, Public Employment, Article 14, Article 16, Article 21
🏛️ Background of the Case
The case of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant decision by the Supreme Court of India that reaffirms the principles of fairness, equality, and dignity in public employment.
The petitioners were engaged as daily-wage and ad-hoc employees in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (UPHESC) between 1989 and 1992.
Despite serving continuously for over three decades, they were never regularised.
The State Government rejected their claim, citing:
-
Financial constraints, and
-
The absence of a formal rule providing for regularisation.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the State’s decision, leading the employees to appeal before the Supreme Court.
⚖️ Key Legal Issues
-
Whether long-term engagement as daily-wage or ad-hoc workers performing perennial work creates a right to regularisation.
-
Whether the State can deny regularisation on grounds of financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts.
-
Whether such refusal violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
🧾 Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the practice of keeping employees in temporary status for decades while utilizing their services in permanent, ongoing work.
The Court noted that:
“Continued engagement of workers on daily-wage or ad-hoc basis for decades, without any steps for regularisation, erodes confidence in public administration and is arbitrary in nature.”
It further held that “financial constraints cannot be a blanket excuse to deny fairness.”
📜 Constitutional Basis
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
The Court emphasized that treating similarly placed employees unequally — by keeping some as permanent and others as daily wagers despite doing the same work — violates Article 14.
Arbitrary denial of regularisation amounts to unequal treatment under law.
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
The Court found that denying regularisation to employees who have served for decades, while filling other posts on a regular basis, defeats equal opportunity in employment.
Fairness in recruitment and service continuity is a constitutional mandate, not a policy choice.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
The Court linked the right to employment stability with the right to livelihood and dignity.
Indefinite insecurity in employment undermines human dignity — violating Article 21’s protection of life with dignity.
🧑⚖️ Judgment
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to consider regularisation of the petitioners with effect from 24 April 2000, aligning with earlier government schemes and judicial precedents.
The Court reaffirmed that the State must act as a model employer and cannot use administrative excuses to perpetuate unfairness.
💬 Key Takeaways for Employers & HR Compliance
-
Periodic Review of Temporary Engagements:
Government and public bodies must ensure that ad-hoc or contractual staff are not engaged for perennial work indefinitely. -
Proper Documentation:
Maintain updated records of sanctioned posts, financial approvals, and staff structures to justify non-regularisation. -
Policy Alignment:
HR policies must reflect constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and dignity. -
Avoid Exploitation by Labels:
“Temporary” should refer to the nature of work, not a tool to deny rights.
🧠 Compliance Insight
This judgment underscores that constitutional fairness overrides administrative convenience.
The State cannot rely on “no fund” or “no rule” arguments to evade its responsibility as a model employer.
“The Constitution protects not just employment — it protects dignity.”
📚 Case Summary
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date | August 2025 |
| Bench | Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta |
| Key Holding | Financial excuses cannot defeat fairness; long-term daily wage workers performing perennial work are entitled to regularisation consideration. |
| Constitutional Provisions | Article 14, Article 16, Article 21 |
🎯 Conclusion
The Dharam Singh judgment reaffirms the Indian judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that temporary employment is not used as a shield for permanent exploitation.
By anchoring the ruling in the principles of equality and dignity, the Supreme Court has once again upheld the constitutional promise of social justice in employment.
✍️ Author: Compliance Monk Legal Research Team
🎓 Kanooni Kisse | Law Made Human
🔗 Join Compliance Monk Membership
Comments