Criticising " ad-hocism" in government employment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration.
While regularising services of some employees in UP Higher Education Services Commission, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the state was a constitutional employer and it cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.
"We think it necessary to recall that the state (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices," the bench said.
The apex court said long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.
"Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that 'ad-hocism' thrives where administration is opaque," the order said.
The bench observed the state departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work was perennial.
The court said if the "constraint" was invoked by the government, the record ought to show what alternatives were considered, why similarly-placed workers were treated differently and how the chosen course aligned with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running," the bench said.
The top court said public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making and respect for the dignity of work.
"While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness," the order said.
The bench further noted non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of financial constraints, ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, did not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by some employees engaged by the commission between 1989 and 1992 challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed their appeal saying they were engaged on daily-wage basis and there were no rules in the UP Higher Education Services Commission for regularisation.
The top court's judgement regularised all the applicants with effect from February 24, 2002.
"For this purpose, the state and the successor establishment ( U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions," it said.
While regularising services of some employees in UP Higher Education Services Commission, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the state was a constitutional employer and it cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.
"We think it necessary to recall that the state (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices," the bench said.
The apex court said long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.
"Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that 'ad-hocism' thrives where administration is opaque," the order said.
The bench observed the state departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work was perennial.
The court said if the "constraint" was invoked by the government, the record ought to show what alternatives were considered, why similarly-placed workers were treated differently and how the chosen course aligned with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running," the bench said.
The top court said public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making and respect for the dignity of work.
"While creation of posts is primarily an executive function, the refusal to sanction posts cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness," the order said.
The bench further noted non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of financial constraints, ignoring functional necessity and the employer's own longstanding reliance on daily wagers to discharge regular duties, did not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by some employees engaged by the commission between 1989 and 1992 challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed their appeal saying they were engaged on daily-wage basis and there were no rules in the UP Higher Education Services Commission for regularisation.
The top court's judgement regularised all the applicants with effect from February 24, 2002.
"For this purpose, the state and the successor establishment ( U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions," it said.
You may also like
World's richest tennis star's billionaire dad broke personal rule ahead of US Open clash
Fan pretends to be delivery boy to enter Shah Rukh Khan's Mannat, guard has a hilarious reaction
Video: Content Creator Poses As Blinkit Delivery Boy To Enter Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai Residence Mannat; Here's What Happened Next
Mumbai Monorail Breaks Down Amid Heavy Rains Due To Power Failure; Rescue Operations Underway
Chancellor Rachel Reeves 'considers shake-up of stamp duty with new property tax'
