SC Orders Regularisation of Allahabad High Court Staff

In this case the Supreme Court delivered a pointed reminder that constitutional values of equality and non-arbitrariness bind not only the executive, but judicial institutions as employers as well.

The decision addresses long-standing grievances of ad-hoc employees who were denied regularisation despite being identically placed with others who received permanent status.

What's The Matter?

The dispute concerned several Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants and Routine Grade Clerks appointed between 2004 and 2005 in the Allahabad High Court.

Their appointments were made by the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution and the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976.

Over time, many similarly appointed employees were regularised and even promoted.

The appellants, however, were denied the same benefit and were eventually discontinued from service.

The High Court justified the differential treatment by relying on a committee report which categorised employees into different groups, largely based on the wording of their appointment orders particularly whether they were described as “ad-hoc” or not, and whether their appointment letters contained conditions relating to future examinations.

These distinctions formed the basis for regularising some employees while rejecting the claims of others, including the appellants.

The Supreme Court found this classification untenable.

It noted that all categories of employees were appointed through the same channel by orders of the Chief Justice exercising statutory and constitutional powers.

Merely labelling some appointments as ad-hoc, or attaching different stipulations in appointment letters, could not justify unequal treatment when the nature of duties, length of service, and source of appointment were identical.

Such an approach, the Court held, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Importantly, the Court emphasised that High Courts, as constitutional authorities, must act as model employers. Administrative decisions within judicial institutions must reflect the same standards of fairness, equality, and reasonableness that courts demand from other state instrumentalities.

Discrimination within the judiciary’s own establishment undermines the very constitutional principles courts are entrusted to protect.

Taking note of the prolonged litigation, the long years of service rendered by the appellants, and the fact that similarly situated employees had already been regularised, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

It ordered reinstatement of the appellants, directed their regularisation after one year from their initial dates of appointment, and granted them all consequential benefits such as seniority and promotion excluding back wages for the period they were out of service.

Where discrimination is evident and longstanding injustice is shown, the Court will not hesitate to step in to do complete justice.

The ruling stands as a significant reaffirmation that constitutional discipline applies with equal force within the judicial system and that equality before law begins at home.