Introduction:
In Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 159), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the constitutional principle of parity and non-discrimination in public employment, directing the regularisation of four long-serving daily-wage employees engaged as sweepers and a cook in the Income Tax Department. The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, with the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar. The Court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declined to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to regularise the appellants’ services. Holding that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently once regularisation has been granted to others in identical circumstances, the Court ruled that the appellants were entitled to the same relief as granted in earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. The judgment marks a significant reaffirmation of substantive equality under Article 14 and clarifies the limited scope of the precedent laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3).
Factual Background:
The appellants were engaged between 1993 and 1998 as sweepers and a cook in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior. Their appointments were not clandestine or surreptitious. They were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and were selected following interviews. For years thereafter, they discharged duties of a perennial and continuous nature on a daily-wage basis.
Despite rendering uninterrupted service for over a decade, the appellants remained on daily wages without regularisation. In 2011–2012, the department initiated outsourcing of similar work. Faced with the prospect of displacement and loss of livelihood, the appellants sought regularisation of their services.
Their requests were rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), by order dated 2015, denied relief. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in 2019, affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Both forums relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi (3), holding that the appellants had not completed ten years of continuous service as on 10 April 2006—the cut-off date considered relevant in Umadevi—and were therefore not entitled to regularisation.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Appellants’ Arguments:
The appellants advanced a multi-layered challenge grounded in equality, parity, and legitimate expectation.
1. Principle of Parity and Non-Discrimination
The central plank of their argument was that other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, engaged in similar capacities and under similar circumstances, had already been granted regularisation pursuant to Supreme Court orders in Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India and Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India. Denying the same benefit to the present appellants amounted to hostile discrimination, violating Article 14.
It was submitted that once the Supreme Court had recognised the entitlement of similarly situated workers to regularisation, the respondent department could not arbitrarily exclude the appellants from the same benefit.
2. Long and Continuous Service
The appellants emphasised that they had performed duties of a perennial nature for over a decade. Their engagement was not for a short-term project or seasonal requirement. The department had extracted continuous service from them, thereby acknowledging the necessity and permanence of their roles.
They contended that substantive rights had accrued in their favour due to their prolonged service, creating a legitimate expectation of regularisation.
3. Distinguishing Umadevi
The appellants argued that the reliance on Umadevi (3) was misplaced. They asserted that their appointments were not illegal or backdoor entries. Being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected through interviews, their engagement could at worst be described as irregular but not illegal.
They relied on the recent judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that Umadevi was never intended to permanently foreclose regularisation of long-serving employees appointed through irregular processes, provided the appointments were not illegal.
4. Arbitrariness in Departmental Conduct
The appellants submitted that the department’s conduct was arbitrary. Having regularised other employees pursuant to Supreme Court directions, the department could not selectively deny the same relief to the present appellants without violating constitutional equality.
Respondents’ Arguments:
The Union of India and departmental authorities resisted the appeal on the following grounds:
1. Strict Application of Umadevi
The respondents argued that the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) had categorically held that regularisation cannot be granted to employees appointed dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. The exception carved out in Umadevi was limited to those who had completed ten years of continuous service as of 10 April 2006 without the protection of interim orders.
Since the appellants had not fulfilled this criterion, they were not entitled to regularisation.
2. No Automatic Parity
It was contended that the mere fact that some employees had been granted relief in earlier cases did not automatically entitle the appellants to identical treatment. Each case, the respondents argued, must be assessed on its own facts.
3. Financial and Administrative Implications
Though not elaborately recorded in the judgment, it is typical in such matters for the department to raise concerns about financial burden and administrative consequences arising from regularisation orders.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, writing for the Bench, undertook a careful analysis of the competing claims.
1. Application of Parity
The Court found that the appellants stood on the same footing as the employees whose services had already been regularised in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar. The nature of engagement, the duration of service, and the character of duties were substantially similar.
The Court observed:
“We are of the view that the services of the appellants are liable to be regularized as they are similarly situated as other daily-wage workers in the Income Tax Department, whose services have been regularized pursuant to various orders passed by this Court.”
The Bench underscored that the principle of parity flows directly from Article 14. Once relief is granted to one set of similarly placed employees, denying the same to others without rational basis constitutes discrimination.
2. Reconsidering Umadevi
The Court rejected the mechanical reliance on Umadevi. Referring to Jaggo v. Union of India, the Bench reiterated that Umadevi was not intended to shut the door permanently on regularisation claims of long-serving workers.
The Court emphasised the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. Appointments made through Employment Exchange sponsorship and interviews could not be termed backdoor entries.
Procedural irregularities at the time of engagement, the Court held, cannot be invoked to deny substantive rights accrued through years of continuous service.
The judgment observed:
“…the Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3)… The High Court also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal.”
3. Substantive Justice Over Technicalities
The Court recognised that the appellants had served for decades performing essential functions. Denying regularisation solely on technical grounds would result in grave injustice.
By aligning the appellants’ case with Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar, the Court ensured consistency in judicial approach and prevented unequal treatment.
Operative Directions:
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed:
The services of the appellants shall be regularised with effect from 01 July 2006.
The terms of regularisation shall be identical to those applied in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar.
All consequential benefits shall be released within three months.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Legal Significance:
1. Strengthening Article 14 in Service Jurisprudence
The judgment reinforces the principle that equality is not a theoretical abstraction but a living guarantee. Once the Court grants relief to one class of similarly situated employees, the State cannot selectively deny it to others.
2. Clarification of Umadevi’s Scope
By invoking Jaggo, the Court clarified that Umadevi does not operate as an absolute bar. It cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate injustice where employees have rendered long years of service through non-illegal appointments.
3. Recognition of Legitimate Expectation
Long and continuous service in perennial roles generates legitimate expectation of stability. The Court’s approach recognises this human dimension of service law.
4. Administrative Accountability
The ruling sends a strong message that departments must act consistently and cannot discriminate between similarly placed employees.