Key Legal Issues

1. Whether long-term engagement as daily-wage or ad-hoc workers performing perennial work creates a right to regularisation.

2. Whether the State can deny regularisation on grounds of financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts.

3. Whether such refusal violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

🧾 Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the practice of keeping employees in temporary status for decades while utilizing their services in permanent, ongoing work.

The Court noted that:

“Continued engagement of workers on daily-wage or ad-hoc basis for decades, without any steps for regularisation, erodes confidence in public administration and is arbitrary in nature.”

It further held that “financial constraints cannot be a blanket excuse to deny fairness.”

📜 Constitutional Basis

Article 14 – Equality Before Law

The Court emphasized that treating similarly placed employees unequally — by keeping some as permanent and others as daily wagers despite doing the same work — violates Article 14.

Arbitrary denial of regularisation amounts to unequal treatment under law.

Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

The Court found that denying regularisation to employees who have served for decades, while filling other posts on a regular basis, defeats equal opportunity in employment.

Fairness in recruitment and service continuity is a constitutional mandate, not a policy choice.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

The Court linked the right to employment stability with the right to livelihood and dignity.

Indefinite insecurity in employment undermines human dignity — violating Article 21’s protection of life with dignity.

🧑‍⚖️ Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the State Government to consider regularisation of the petitioners with effect from 24 April 2000, aligning with earlier government schemes and judicial precedents.

The Court reaffirmed that the State must act as a model employer and cannot use administrative excuses to perpetuate unfairness.

💬 Key Takeaways for Employers & HR Compliance

1. Periodic Review of Temporary Engagements:
   Government and public bodies must ensure that ad-hoc or contractual staff are not engaged for perennial work indefinitely.

2. Proper Documentation:
   Maintain updated records of sanctioned posts, financial approvals, and staff structures to justify non-regularisation.

3. Policy Alignment:
   HR policies must reflect constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and dignity.

4. Avoid Exploitation by Labels:
   “Temporary” should refer to the nature of work, not a tool to deny rights.

🧠 Compliance Insight

This judgment underscores that constitutional fairness overrides administrative convenience.
The State cannot rely on “no fund” or “no rule” arguments to evade its responsibility as a model employer.

“The Constitution protects not just employment — it protects dignity.”

📚 Case Summary

🎯 Conclusion

The Dharam Singh judgment reaffirms the Indian judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that temporary employment is not used as a shield for permanent exploitation.
By anchoring the ruling in the principles of equality and dignity, the Supreme Court has once again upheld the constitutional promise of social justice in employment.