Supreme Court Condemns Selective Regularization of Employees as Discriminatory and Violative of Article 14

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that the act of regularizing the services of some entitled employees while excluding others is discriminatory and infringes upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had identified 65 employees as eligible for regularization, but due to limited available posts, only 35 employees were granted regularized employment.

The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, adjudicated the appeal filed in the case of Raman Kumar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. The court directed the Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, commencing from the date when the services of the other 35 employees were regularized. Additionally, the court ordered the payment of back wages and other consequential benefits to be completed within a six-month timeframe.

The ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 had established that while backdoor entries should be prohibited, a one-time measure could be taken to regularize the services of employees who had completed more than ten years of service.

In accordance with the Umadevi judgment, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax conducted an exercise and determined that 65 employees were entitled to regularization in a report dated 14.02.2013. However, only 35 employees' services were regularized due to the limited availability of 35 vacancies.

Sixteen individuals, referred to as "appellants," among the remaining 30 employees, filed contempt petitions, alleging that the departments had not regularized their services, constituting contempt of court.

The Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs), filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that the services of the remaining employees could not be regularized due to the unavailability of posts.

On 09.12.2019, the High Court disposed of the contempt petitions, ruling that there was no contempt based on the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs).

The appellants then appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. The respondents argued that the appellants could not be regularized due to the absence of posts and the subsequent abolition of 'Group D' posts.

The bench noted that the appellants had completed more than ten years of service. It relied on the judgment in Ravi Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018, which held that selectively regularizing the services of some employees while excluding others contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is deemed discriminatory.

The bench emphasized that since the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax himself identified 65 individuals as eligible for regularization, the act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees violates 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 himself found that 65 individuals 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," opined the bench.

Furthermore, the bench deemed the High Court's refusal to entertain the contempt petitions as an error. Recognizing that relegating the appellants to the High Court would unnecessarily delay justice, the bench directed the regularization of the appellants' services from the date when the services of the other 35 employees were regularized. It further ordered the payment of back wages and other consequential benefits to the appellants within a period of six months.

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of non-discriminatory practices in the regularization of employees. By affirming the violation of Article 14 in selectively excluding entitled employees from regularization, the court upholds the principles of equality and justice. The directive for regularization and payment of back wages and benefits to the appellants within a specified timeframe aims to rectify the discriminatory actions and ensure timely justice.