- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Narendra Kumar Tiwari And Others v. State Of Jharkhand And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These civil appeals challenge a common judgment dated 17-11-2016 of the Jharkhand High Court whereby a batch of writ petitions filed by daily-wage/contract workers seeking regularisation was dismissed. The writ petitioners, now appellants, are irregularly appointed employees of the State of Jharkhand. They claimed regular status on the basis of having rendered more than ten years of service. The High Court held them ineligible under the Jharkhand “Regularisation Rules, 2015”, reasoning that those Rules—framed to give effect to the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)—required ten years’ service as on 10-04-2006. Because Jharkhand came into existence only on 15-11-2000, none of the petitioners satisfied the ten-year criterion on that cut-off date. Aggrieved, the workers appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Jharkhand High Court erred in applying the cut-off date of 10-04-2006, fixed in Umadevi (3), to deny regularisation to workers who completed ten years’ service only after that date but before promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, 2015.
- How the “one-time measure” contemplated in Umadevi (3) and elaborated in M.L. Kesari should be interpreted in the specific context of the newly-created State of Jharkhand.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Because the State of Jharkhand was formed on 15-11-2000, it was impossible for any employee to have completed ten years of service with that State by the cut-off date of 10-04-2006; therefore the Rules were rendered ineffectual unless interpreted pragmatically.
- The State itself deviated from the strict cut-off by issuing Resolutions dated 18-07-2009 and 19-07-2009 regularising certain employees who had not met the ten-year requirement, evidencing discriminatory treatment toward the appellants.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Introduced a “one-time measure” to regularise workers who had rendered 10+ years' service as on 10-04-2006 and barred future irregular appointments. | Court held that a literal application would defeat the protective intent where the State itself was created only in 2000; stressed that the spirit of the judgment must guide interpretation. |
| State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 | Clarified the scope of the “one-time measure,” stating it should encompass all eligible workers even if six-month window had lapsed or some were inadvertently left out. | Relied on to emphasise pragmatic, inclusive consideration of workers who completed ten years’ service after 10-04-2006 but before promulgation of Regularisation Rules. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court, per Madan B. Lokur, J., found the High Court’s approach “impractical” and contrary to the twin objectives of Umadevi (3)—ending future irregular appointments and protecting long-serving irregular workers. Key steps in its reasoning included:
Interpreting Umadevi (3) literally would permanently bar any Jharkhand employee from regularisation, perpetuating the very abuse the Constitution Bench sought to end. M.L. Kesari: The Court cited paras 9-11 of Kesari to underline that the “one-time exercise” remains open until all eligible workers are considered, even beyond six months. The Court held that workers who completed ten years’ service by the date of promulgation of the 2015 Rules should be considered for regularisation, subject to usual service considerations (e.g., absence of misconduct).
Holding and Implications
The impugned High Court judgment is set aside. The State of Jharkhand is directed to decide, within four months, on regularising appellants who had completed ten years of service as of the date the Regularisation Rules, 2015 were promulgated, unless valid objections such as misconduct exist.
Implications: The decision affords immediate relief to the appellants and signals that courts will adopt a purposive reading of Umadevi (3) where literal application defeats its protective intent. The judgment does not lay down new legal principles but underscores the need for States to cease irregular appointments and to implement genuine regularisation exercises.
Madan B. Lokur, J.— Leave granted. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17-11-2016 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in a batch of writ petitions relating to the regularisation of daily-wage or contract workers on different posts. The writ petitioners (now appellants) were denied the benefit of regularisation in view of the provisions of the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regularisation Rules”).
2. The admitted position is that the appellants are irregularly appointed employees of the State Government. They sought regularisation of their status on the ground that they had put in more than 10 years of service and were therefore entitled to be regularised. The High Court took the view that the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 did not permit their regularisation since they had not worked for 10 years on the cut-off date of 10-4-2006 when the Constitution Bench rendered its decision. According to the High Court, the Regularisation Rules provided a one-time measure of regularisation of the services of irregularly appointed employees based on the cut-off date of 10-4-2006 in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Therefore, since the appellants had not put in 10 years of service they could not be regularised.
3. The appellants had contended before the High Court that the State of Jharkhand was created only on 15-11-2000 and therefore no one could have completed 10 years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10-4-2006. Therefore, no one could get the benefit of the Regularisation Rules which made the entire legislative exercise totally meaningless. The appellants had pointed out in the High Court that the State had issued Resolutions on 18-7-2009 and 19-7-2009 permitting the regularisation of some employees of the State, who had obviously not put in 10 years of service with the State. Consequently, it was submitted that the appellants were discriminated against for no fault of theirs and in an irrational manner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as the subsequent decision of this Court explaining Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in taking an impractical view of the directions in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as its consideration in Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247.
5. The decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily-wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in para 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one-time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis.
6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows:
“9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 as a one-time measure.”
7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.
11. The impugned judgment and order 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904 passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
12. We may add that that it would be worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular appointments only and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.
Alert