High courts must exemplify standards of model employer: SC

New Delhi, Dec 19 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday said that high courts, being constitutional courts entrusted to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to encompass the principles within their own administrative functioning and must exemplify the standards of a "model employer".

The apex court's observation came while deciding appeals pertaining to Allahabad High Court's non-regularisation of some employees in the post of operator-cum-data entry assistants and routine grade clerks.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said the respondents have caused grave prejudice to the appellants through rejection of their representations for regularisation, though similarly placed employees have been granted the same, without there being any reasonable distinction between them.

"High courts, being constitutional courts entrusted to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles within their own administrative functioning as well, and must exemplify the standards of a model employer," the bench said.

It said such principles are at the risk of being undermined when discriminatory treatment is meted out to employees similarly situated within the same establishment.

"Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

While Article 14 deals with equality before law, Article 16 pertains to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty.

The bench directed that appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were working at the time of their discontinuance.

It said the respondent shall regularise the service of the appellants after one year from their respective dates of appointment.

The bench directed that during the period in which the appellants remained out of service, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments and retiral benefits, if applicable, except for the salary for the period that they have not worked.

The top court asked the respondent to comply with its directions within eight weeks from Friday.

It made clear that directions issued and observations made in its judgment were limited to the facts and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner be treated as a precedent.

The bench was dealing with appeals challenging two 2015 judgments of the high court relating to the issue.

"The controversy in the present case is that while numerous similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been regularised from time to time, the appellants contend that they were singled out without there being any reasonable justification and denied regularisation," the top court noted.

The counsel for the respondent had argued before the apex court that regularisation was not the right of an employee, and the administrative authorities were entitled to regulate the staffing strength of the institution.

It was also argued by the respondent that the high court's division bench had correctly held that ad-hoc appointments do not confer entitlement of regularisation and that the direction enabling the appellants to participate in future selections with age relaxation was adequate remedy.

It was submitted that the post on which the appellants were appointed, that is routine grade clerk, was now a "dead cadre" and it had merged with the post of 'computer assistants' as per the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2019, which requires computer qualifications and knowledge.

The top court noted the artificial distinction drawn between the appellants and other similarly situated employees is the discrimination that must be weeded out in pursuit of justice.

The bench was also informed that services of the appellants were dispensed with by the high court by an order dated September 15, 2015 of the registrar general and they were not entitled for regularisation. PTI ABA ABA RUK RUK