Failure to recognize their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to principles of equity: Apex Court allows plea of Railway employees seeking regularization
Justices Vikram Nath & K.V. Viswanathan [30-04-2024]

Read Order: VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5153-5154 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 30, 2024: The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order which negated the plea of railway employees for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. 

Pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991, the appellants were initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews. After the rejection of their representation for regularization to the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications. The Tribunal dismissed the applications of the appellants, concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization or absorption into permanent posts. 

Thereafter, the appellants approached the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed their Writ Petitions observing that the appellants' employment under a temporary scheme could not confer upon them the rights akin to those held by permanent employees. 

The aggrieved appellants approached the Top Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. 

“This Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement”, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice K.V. Viswanathan held.

It was noted that the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.

As per the Bench, the application of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [LQ/SC/2006/324]  by the High Court did not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and had continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguished their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

The Bench found merit in the appellants' arguments and held that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warranted a reclassification from temporary to regular status. 

“The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations”, it added.

Thus, allowing the appeals and holding the appellants entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The Bench ordered, “The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.”