Court mandates Uttar Pradesh to formalize the employment status of daily wage workers who have been working on a temporary basis for over three decades.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Dharam Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the government's practice of denying regular employment to temporary workers who have served for decades.

In the ruling, the Court set aside orders of the Allahabad High Court that had upheld the State government's refusal to sanction posts in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission. The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, directed the appellants to be regularized with effect from April 24, 2002.

The Court quashed the State's refusal of November 1999 and November 2003 to sanction permanent posts, and ordered the State and the UP Education Services Selection Commission to create supernumerary posts to implement this. A compliance affidavit has to be filed by the State within four months.

The Court stated that long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. Governments, as constitutional employers, must be held to a higher standard when it comes to their employment practices.

The Court underlined that the practice of long-term ad-hoc employment was a direct outcome of administrative opacity and the State has to explain with evidence why ad-hoc employment was being preferred over sanctioned posts when work is perennial in nature. If financial constraint is invoked as a ground, records should show what alternatives were considered.

The ruling also mandates that arrears are to be paid for the period from April 24, 2002, with adjustments for amounts already received. Retired employees are to have their pensions and terminal dues recalculated. In case of deceased appellants, legal representatives are to receive arrears and benefits. Default would attract compound interest at six per cent.

Advocates Anil K Chopra, Sriram Parakkat, Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Shashwat Anand, Chintan Nirala, Saumitra Anand, Ankur Azad, Shashank Tiwari, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan, and P Ashok represented the appellants. Advocates Samar Vijay Singh assisted by Amit Ojha, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, SD Singh, Bharti Tyagi, Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh, Meenu Singh, and Siddharth Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Since April 2002, the government of Uttar Pradesh has taken steps to regularize the employment status of the affected individuals. The case arose out of petitions by Class-III and Class-IV workers who had been engaged between 1989 and 1992 and remained on temporary rolls despite continuous service for more than three decades.

The ruling serves as a significant step towards ensuring fair employment practices and upholding the principles of equality and justice in public administration.