Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India’s 2025 judgment in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. dramatically redefines employee rights in public service by declaring selective regularisation of daily wage workers as both arbitrary and unconstitutional. This landmark case highlights the principles of fairness, equality, and dignity enshrined in Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring equitable treatment for all government-employed workers performing comparable duties.
What is Selective Regularisation and Why is it Controversial?
Selective regularisation refers to the State’s practice of regularising only some daily wage employees while denying the same benefit to others with similar work history and duties. The Supreme Court found that this constitutes discrimination and violates the constitutional rights to equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
Case Overview: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025)
-
- Background: Six daily wage workers, including five Class-IV staff and one driver, hired between 1989 and 1992 by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, were kept as temporary staff for decades despite performing essential, ongoing tasks. Previous efforts to create regular posts were blocked by the State on the grounds of financial constraints.
-
- Legal Challenge: The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the State’s refusal to regularise these workers, while regularising others in similar roles, violated constitutional guarantees.
-
- High Court’s Error: The Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for narrowing the case to “regularisation rules,” failing to address the real issue of arbitrary denial of sanctioned posts.
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
-
- State’s Blanket Financial Excuses Invalid: The State’s reliance on vague financial constraints was not a valid justification for excluding some workers from regularisation, especially when the work performed was ongoing and essential.
-
- Continuous and Perennial Work Matters: Workers consistently performing vital functions for years cannot be left on insecure contracts without legal justification.
-
- Unequal Treatment Is Unconstitutional: Regularising some but not all similarly placed employees violates the equality clauses of Articles 14 and 16.
-
- Misuse of Umadevi Ruling: The Court clarified that the 2006 Umadevi judgment does not endorse perpetual exploitation of workers on ad-hoc terms when their work is both permanent and essential.
-
- Article 21 Reinforced: Denial of job security and social benefits to long-serving daily wagers was found to infringe on their dignity and right to livelihood.
Directions and Precedent Set
-
- Full Regularisation Ordered: The Supreme Court directed regularisation of the affected employees effective from 2002, payment of arrears, and extension of pension and gratuity benefits to retirees or deceased employees’ families.
-
- Creation of Supernumerary Posts: The court mandated creation of additional posts if necessary to ensure justice and compliance without further administrative delay.
-
- Compliance and Accountability: The State must file affidavits verifying implementation within four months, ensuring direct accountability for upholding constitutional rights.
Broader Impact: End of Unchecked Ad-Hocism in Government Jobs
-
- The ruling signals a decisive end to the exploitation of government daily wagers through endless temporary contracts and bans on post creation.
-
- Emphasizes a model where transparency, fairness, and security in public sector employment are not state magnanimity, but mandatory constitutional obligations.
-
- This decision sets a precedent that is likely to impact thousands of similarly placed workers, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to social and economic justice.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Dharam Singh & Ors. makes clear that selective regularisation of daily wagers is unconstitutional. The decision underscores the government’s duty to treat all workers with fairness, dignity, and equality—transforming rights into enforceable outcomes and setting a strong precedent for labour relations in India.