Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition filed by daily wage employees seeking permanent status and benefits equivalent to regular employees. The Court categorically held that “conferment of permanent status cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of statutory provisions or binding schemes.” It emphasized that the State is not obligated to regularize daily wagers unless specific government resolutions or policies create such entitlement.
Facts
The petitioners were daily wagers employed for several years in various departments under the State Government. They contended that despite long years of service, the authorities had failed to regularize their employment or grant them benefits on par with permanent employees. Their demand was premised on claims of unfair treatment, alleging that similarly situated workers had been granted permanency.
The respondents, representing the State, resisted the claim by pointing out that the petitioners had no vested right in law to seek permanent absorption merely on account of length of service, particularly in the absence of sanctioned posts or financial approval from the State.
Issues
- Whether daily wage employees who have served for several years are entitled to permanent status and benefits automatically.
- Whether the petitioners could enforce parity by citing alleged instances of other similarly situated workers being granted permanency.
- Whether constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 16 compel the State to confer regularization in such cases.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that their long years of continuous service created a legitimate expectation of permanency. They relied on the principle of equal treatment, contending that denial of permanency amounted to discrimination since others in similar positions were granted the benefit.
They further submitted that exploitation of daily wagers undermines the spirit of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16, and that the State has a moral and constitutional duty to prevent arbitrary denial of livelihood security.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State countered that no statutory provision mandates automatic regularization of daily wagers. The petitioners were engaged without sanctioned posts, and their continuation was based solely on exigencies of work.
It was further argued that any act of regularization in violation of sanctioned strength or budgetary approval would not only be contrary to law but also burden public finances. The State clarified that selective regularization, if done in the past, could not create a legal precedent for universal enforcement.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scheme of employment law and reiterated that daily wage workers cannot claim permanency as a matter of right. The judiciary has consistently held that “mere length of service does not create a right to regularization.” The Court also examined constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 16, clarifying that equality applies among equals, and that employees appointed dehors the rules cannot equate themselves with those validly appointed to sanctioned posts.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) – where the Supreme Court held that irregular appointments cannot be regularized unless they fall within a one-time policy measure. This judgment has become the cornerstone of employment jurisprudence in regularization cases.
- State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union (2013) – where the Supreme Court directed framing of schemes for certain categories of daily wagers but clarified that blanket regularization cannot be granted.
Both precedents were cited to reinforce that permanency must flow from policy or statute, not from judicial directions alone.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that though the petitioners may have served for several years, their entry into service was not through sanctioned recruitment channels. Hence, their claim to parity with regular employees was legally untenable.
It held that selective instances of regularization in the past cannot create enforceable rights. The Court stressed that “in matters of public employment, adherence to statutory rules and sanctioned posts is paramount.”
The Court concluded that while the plight of daily wagers may evoke sympathy, courts are bound by law and cannot direct blanket regularization contrary to binding precedents.
Conclusion
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to permanent status or benefits equivalent to regular employees. It reaffirmed that “conferment of permanent status is a matter of policy and not a matter of right.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle laid down in Umadevi, safeguarding public employment from backdoor regularization. It sends a clear message that daily wagers cannot rely solely on long service to claim permanency. The ruling also underscores that any solution must come from legislative or policy measures, not judicial mandates, thereby maintaining the balance between sympathy for workers and fiscal discipline of the State.
Cases Referred
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) – Established that regularization of irregular appointees cannot be directed by courts unless policy permits.
- State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union (2013) – Directed the State to frame schemes for daily wagers but clarified that there is no general right to permanency.
FAQs
Q1: Can daily wage employees claim permanency after several years of service?
No. The Court reiterated that “mere length of service does not confer a right to permanency.” Regularization can only be claimed if there is a statutory scheme or government resolution providing for it.
Q2: Does granting permanency to some daily wagers create rights for others?
No. The Court clarified that “selective or erroneous regularization in some cases cannot create an enforceable right for all.” Each case depends on statutory provisions and sanctioned posts.
Q3: What precedent governs regularization disputes?
The leading precedent is Umadevi (2006), which bars blanket regularization of irregular appointments and limits relief to policy-driven schemes framed by the State.