Introduction

The case of C. Mahender & Others v. Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad rep by its Registrar, Public Gardens, Hyderabad & Others presented before the Telangana High Court on April 21, 2020, addresses the critical issue of regularizing the services of daily wage employees in public institutions. The petitioners, comprising five individuals from various communities, challenged the Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University’s rejection of their claims for regularization on a ‘One-Time’ basis. The central contention revolves around the denial of regular pay scales and the continuation of service on daily wages despite long-term employment and eligibility as per existing legal frameworks.

Summary of the Judgment

The Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, scrutinized the denial by Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University to regularize the services of the petitioners. The court found that the University’s rejection was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment mandated the regularization of the petitioners' services on a one-time basis, effective from the date each petitioner completed ten years of service on daily wages. However, it excluded any entitlement to monetary relief. The respondents were also ordered to comply with this directive within two weeks of the order’s issuance and to bear legal costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases that shaped its reasoning:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1: This Supreme Court decision established the principle that public employers must regularize the services of daily wage workers who have served for ten years or more, emphasizing adherence to constitutional mandates over administrative lapses.
• M.L. Kesari v. State of Punjab (2010) 9 S.C.C. 247: This case elaborated on the obligations of governmental departments to conduct one-time regularization exercises in line with Uma Devi’s directives.
• Nihal Singh v. State Of Punjab (2013) 14 S.C.C. 65: Reinforced the necessity for regularization of long-serving daily wage employees and highlighted the judiciary's role in ensuring governance compliance.
• N. Venkaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2018) (4 A.L.T. 6): Affirmed that the State cannot evade regularization obligations by citing administrative oversights or legislative gaps.

Additionally, the judgment considered the directive from Writ Petition No. 22770 of 2014, which dealt with similar issues in Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was anchored in the constitutional provisions that ensure equality (Article 14), the right to equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16), and the protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21). It underscored that the University’s failure to regularize the petitioners despite their long-term service and eligibility contravened these constitutional mandates.

The judgment highlighted that the respondents had acknowledged the petitioners’ service against sanctioned posts through their own admissions in correspondences dated 2003, 2008, and 2015. Nevertheless, the University dismissed their claims by incorrectly referencing Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014, without justifiable reasoning, thereby displaying arbitrariness in decision-making.

The court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s directives in Uma Devi and subsequent cases imposed a mandatory obligation on public employers to regularize eligible employees, overriding any administrative or legislative impediments unless explicitly exempted by higher courts or constitutional amendments.

Impact

This judgment sets a landmark precedent in Telangana and potentially other jurisdictions by:

• Reinforcing the necessity for public institutions to adhere to Supreme Court directives regarding employee regularization.
• Compelling governmental bodies to undertake systematic reviews and regularization processes for long-serving daily wage employees.
• Highlighting the court’s willingness to intervene decisively against arbitrary administrative actions that undermine constitutional rights.
• Influencing future litigations by providing a clear judicial stance on the non-negotiable nature of regularization obligations.

Moreover, the judgment underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing accountability in public institutions, ensuring that employees' constitutional rights are protected against administrative neglect or malfeasance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Regularization of Services: This refers to the process of converting temporary or contractual employment into permanent, regular employment. Regularized employees gain access to full-time benefits, job security, and adherence to standard pay scales.
• One-Time Basis Regularization: A measure allowing public institutions to regularize the service of employees who have served for a long duration (typically ten years or more) without altering the existing pay structure. It acts as a remedial measure to address historical irregularities in hiring practices.
• Minimum Time-Scale: The basic salary increment process based on the duration of service and organizational pay scales. Receiving a minimum time-scale ensures that employees receive periodic salary increments equivalent to their longer-tenured counterparts.
• Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India:
  • Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
  • Article 16: Provides equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
  • Article 21: Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.