Regularizing Service Of Few Employees And Not Others Despite Eligibility Is Violative Of Article 14: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available. The Bench comprising...
The Supreme Court has held that act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available.
The Bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Raman Kumar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., has directed the Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized, and to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of six months.
BACKGROUND FACTS
In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held that though backdoor entries should not be permitted, but a one-time measure could be conducted for regularizing services of the employees who had completed more than ten years of service.
In the exercise conducted in pursuance of the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. judgment, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in its report dated 14.02.2013 found 65 employees entitled for regularization. However, the services of only 35 employees were regularized and of the remaining 30 employees was not, since only 35 vacancies were available.
Sixteen persons (“Appellants”) out of the remaining thirty employees, filed contempt petition(s) alleging that the Departments (“Respondents”) are not regularizing their services and have thereby committed Contempt of Court.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs) (Respondent) filed an affidavit before the High Court, stating that the services of the remaining employees could not be regularized since the posts were not available.
On 09.12.2019, the High Court disposed of the contempt petition while holding that there was no contempt in view of the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs).
The Appellants filed an appeal before Supreme Court against the High Court order. The Respondents argued that Appellants could not be regularized due to absence of posts and the subsequent abolition of ‘Group D’ posts.
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
The Bench observed that the Appellants have completed more than ten years of service. Reliance was placed on Ravi Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018, wherein it was held that the act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Regularizing employment of only some of the employees is violative of Article 14
The Bench noted that since the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had himself found that 65 persons were entitled to regularization, then the act of regularizing the service of only 35 persons is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
“We are not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents. When the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that 65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees and not regularizing the services of other employees, including the appellants, is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, the Bench opined.
Further, the High Court erred in not entertaining the contempt petition. Since relegating the Appellants to the High Court would cause unnecessarily delay in delivering justice, the Bench has directed that the Appellants’ services be regularized from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized and the backwages and other consequential benefits be paid within a period of six months.
“The services of the appellants are directed to be regularized from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized and the backwages and other consequential benefits etc., to which the appellants would be entitled to, shall be paid to them within a period of six months from today.”
The appeal has been disposed of.
Case Title: Raman Kumar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kumar, Adv. Ms. Smriti Wadhwa, Adv.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nain, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv.