Longevity Of Service Cannot Be Sole Reason For Claiming Regularisation: Kerala HC

Background

Firemen from the Cochin Port Trust's Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) filed two writ petitions seeking regularisation of their services and pay parity with regular firemen. The LRP firemen were appointed pursuant to an advertisement that specified identical qualifications for both LRP and permanent positions. Despite working for over two decades, they were engaged only when regular firemen went on leave and received significantly lower pay.

They argued that their work was not any different from that of regular firemen, who enjoyed additional benefits such as weekly offs. They also explained that their engagement was made irregular by necessity rather than choice, as a ban on regular appointments imposed by the Central Government forced the Port Trust to rely on LRP workers.

Arguments

Dr. V.N. Sankarjee and Mr. Sugunapalan N.N., representing the firemen, argued that the prolonged use of LRP workers in place of regular staff was exploitative and violated the principle of equal pay for equal work. They cited Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [(2018) 8 SCC 238], and argued that a pragmatic approach was necessary toward regularisation of employees who served irregularly for over ten years.

Mr. K. Anand, representing the Cochin Port Trust, argued that the firemen's appointments were never intended to be permanent. He maintained that LRP workers were engaged only on an as-needed basis and that the Port Trust was under no obligation to regularise their services. He further asserted that the principles laid down in Umadevi precluded the firemen from claiming regularisation.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that the firemen were explicitly appointed as LRP workers as per the newspaper advertisement in 2003. Their employment was contingent on operational needs, and did not come with any assurance of regularisation. While noting that LRP workers had served for over 21 years, the court clarified that longevity of service alone does not confer any entitlement to regularisation.

Further, the court referred to Umadevi and ruled that regularisation is permissible only for employees who meet specific conditions, such as having served in duly sanctioned posts for at least ten years as of April 2006. The firemen failed to satisfy this criterion since their appointments were not against sanctioned permanent vacancies but arose from a ban on regular recruitment. The court also distinguished the facts from Narendra Kumar Tiwari, holding that the Port Trust had not perpetuated irregular appointments in the same manner as Jharkhand in that case. It found that the LRP arrangement, though prolonged, remained consistent with operational needs.

Lastly, the court took up the principle of equal pay for equal work. It held that since the nature of their engagement differed fundamentally from that of regular firemen, pay parity could not be demanded. The court ruled that the doctrine only applies when the work and employment terms are identical, which was not the case here. Thus, the court refused to regularise the workers and dismissed the petitions. However, it directed the firemen to submit a representation to the Port Trust for future recruitments, and asked the Trust to provide them with additional grace marks and preferential treatment.

Case Title: S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 828

Counsel for the petitioners: Dr. V.N. Sankarjee and Mr. Sugunapalan N.N.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. K. Anand, Smt. Latha Anand, and Mr. M.N. Radhakrishna Menon.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order