The question of whether the selective regularisation of daily wage employees is arbitrary and unconstitutional has been at the forefront of Indian labour jurisprudence for decades. The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) reaffirms the principle that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot indefinitely exploit workers under temporary or precarious arrangements while regularising others similarly situated. This decision draws strength from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, placing fairness and equity at the heart of public employment.
This article examines the issue through the lens of this landmark case, situating it within the broader framework of precedent, constitutional principles, and socio-economic justice. It explores the Court’s reasoning, critiques the misuse of “financial constraints” as a justification, and highlights how selective regularisation violates equality and dignity of work.
Factual Background
The appellants in this case were daily wage workers engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. Five of them served as Class-IV employees (Peons/attendants), and one served as a Driver (Class-III). Initially paid as daily wagers, they were later placed on a meagre consolidated monthly honorarium, despite performing perennial ministerial and support functions during regular office hours.
In 1991, the Commission itself resolved to create fourteen sanctioned posts and sought approval from the State. However, the proposal was rejected in 1999 citing “financial constraints.” A renewed proposal in 2003 was again rejected, this time citing a financial crisis and a ban on the creation of new posts. Despite this, the Commission continued to depend on the appellants for regular and recurring work.
Aggrieved, the workers sought relief before the Allahabad High Court. Their writ petition was dismissed, and the Division Bench affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that there were no rules for regularisation and no sanctioned vacancies. This prompted the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court was confronted with the following core issues:
- Whether the High Court erred in treating the case merely as a plea for regularisation, rather than adjudicating the appellants’ challenge to the State’s refusal to sanction posts.
- Whether the State’s rejection of proposals on grounds of financial constraints and a ban on posts was arbitrary and contrary to constitutional guarantees.
- Whether selective regularisation of some daily wagers, while excluding others with identical service conditions, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was justified in the given circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
1) Failure of the High Court
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by reducing the controversy to a narrow question of regularisation without addressing the legality of the State’s refusals. The writ petition had expressly challenged the government’s refusal to sanction posts, yet this issue was ignored, amounting to a misdirection
2) Arbitrariness of the State’s Refusal
The Court criticised the State’s blanket reliance on “financial constraints” as a justification. It held that such generic reasoning, ignoring functional necessity and continuous deployment of workers, failed the test of reasonableness. Public employment must be organised on lawful lines, and a non-speaking order based on vague fiscal excuses cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
3) Continuous and Perennial Nature of Work
The Court emphasised that the nature of duties performed—sorting applications, dispatch work, driving, and office support—were not seasonal but continuous and integral to the functioning of the Commission. To extract decades of regular labour under a temporary label amounted to exploitation and denial of dignity.
4) Selective Regularisation and Unequal Treatment
Perhaps the most striking finding was that while the appellants remained daily wagers, others in the same Commission with comparable service were regularised. Evidence of existing vacancies further undermined the State’s position. The Court held that such selective regularisation amounted to unequal treatment and was violative of equity and Articles 14 and 16.
5) Misapplication of Umadevi
The Court clarified that the reliance on Umadevi was misplaced. Umadevi distinguished between “illegal appointments” and “irregular appointments” and never intended to legitimise decades-long exploitation of workers performing permanent tasks. Recent judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025) were cited to reinforce that Umadevi cannot serve as a shield for perpetuating “ad-hocism”.
Constitutional Framework
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Selective regularisation of some employees while excluding others equally placed constitutes a violation of Article 14. The principle of equality does not merely prohibit discrimination but requires fairness in state action. When identical duties are extracted, employees cannot be treated unequally.
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Article 16 mandates equal opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State. Selective regularisation undermines this principle by conferring permanency on a chosen few while denying it to others with the same qualifications, tenure, and duties.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
The Court reaffirmed that prolonged insecurity of tenure, denial of social security benefits, and continued exploitation of daily wagers amount to violation of dignity under Article 21. Fair wages, job security, and equal treatment are integral to a life of dignity
Directions Issued by the Court
In a rare and comprehensive set of directions, the Supreme Court ordered:
- Regularisation and Creation of Supernumerary Posts – All appellants were to be regularised with effect from 24.04.2002, with supernumerary posts created if necessary.
- Financial Consequences – Payment of arrears, including the difference between actual wages and regular pay-scale from 2002 onwards, with interest.
- Benefits to Retired and Deceased Employees – Pension, gratuity, and other terminal dues to be recalculated and paid to retired employees or legal representatives of deceased ones.
- Compliance Affidavit – The State was directed to file an affidavit of compliance within four months.
These directions underscored the Court’s determination to convert rights into tangible outcomes, preventing further administrative evasions.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated:
As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Broader Implications
End of “Ad-hocism” in Public Employment
The judgment marks a decisive move against the State’s tendency to exploit precarious labour under the guise of temporary or daily-wage contracts. It reinforces that ad-hocism corrodes public confidence and violates constitutional discipline.
Judicial Scrutiny of Financial Excuses
The Court made it clear that financial stringency cannot be invoked as a blanket justification for denying workers their rights. The State must show evidence of alternatives considered, reasons for differential treatment, and alignment with constitutional principles.
Accountability of the State as a Constitutional Employer
The Court emphasised that the State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot outsource perennial work or deny permanency to those performing essential functions for decades. Transparency in muster rolls, establishment registers, and outsourcing arrangements was mandated
Comparative Precedents
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006): While Umadevi remains the leading precedent, distinguishing illegal appointments from irregular ones, this case shows its limits. It cannot justify exploitation through endless precarious contracts.
- Jaggo v. Union of India (2024): This case criticised the misuse of temporary contracts in government institutions, equating such practices with the exploitative gig economy.
- Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025): Here, the Court reiterated that workers engaged for permanent tasks under daily wage arrangements cannot be dismissed as dispensable. The decision explicitly linked fairness in public employment with constitutional guarantees.
Critical Analysis
The ruling in Dharam Singh represents a constitutional reassertion of fairness and dignity in labour relations. However, some concerns persist:
- Implementation Challenges: Despite strong directions, compliance often lags in such matters. The need for compliance affidavits reflects systemic resistance in state administration.
- Potential Floodgate of Claims: The judgment could inspire numerous claims from other similarly placed workers, potentially straining state finances. Yet, this cannot outweigh constitutional obligations.
- Balancing Fiscal Policy and Equity: While fiscal discipline is crucial, the Court rightly noted that balancing budgets “on the backs of those who perform the most basic functions” cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
Selective regularisation among daily wagers is both arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Dharam Singh & Ors. underscores that fairness, equality, and dignity cannot be compromised by financial excuses or administrative inertia. The State, as a constitutional employer, is bound by Articles 14, 16, and 21 to organise its workforce on lawful lines, ensuring that perennial work is performed by employees enjoying security, parity, and respect.
This judgment goes beyond the plight of a few appellants. It sets a precedent for dismantling the exploitative structures of precarious employment in public institutions. By declaring selective regularisation unconstitutional, the Court has reaffirmed the constitutional promise of equality and dignity for all workers—reminding us that justice is not a matter of grace, but of obligation.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams