NEW DELHI: Deprecating the practice of Centre and states not appointing permanent employees and getting their work done by temporary and daily-wage staff, Supreme Court on Tuesday said governments should behave like a " constitutional employer " and not like a mere market player.
It directed the UP government to regularise from 2002 the services of class 3 and 4 employees who have been working for the state Education Services Selection Commission, reports AmitAnand Choudhary
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said govts should not invoke budgetary constraints to justify ad-hocism. The state, as a constitutional employer, should maintain a higher standard.
The state, as a constitutional employer, deal with perennial work on a sanctioned footing, creating a budget for the purpose, Supreme Court held.
"We think it necessary to recall the state (here referring to both the Union and the State govts) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on backs of those who perform most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines," the bench said.
SC passed the order on a petition seeking regularisation of jobs of people who had been performing peon/attendant duties for the commission since 1989. Allowing their plea, SC directed that their services be regularised from 2002, with arrears being paid until the date of regularisation/retirement/death, as the case may be.
"It must necessarily be noted ad-hocism thrives where administration is opaque. The state departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If constraint is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.
It directed the UP government to regularise from 2002 the services of class 3 and 4 employees who have been working for the state Education Services Selection Commission, reports AmitAnand Choudhary
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said govts should not invoke budgetary constraints to justify ad-hocism. The state, as a constitutional employer, should maintain a higher standard.
The state, as a constitutional employer, deal with perennial work on a sanctioned footing, creating a budget for the purpose, Supreme Court held.
"We think it necessary to recall the state (here referring to both the Union and the State govts) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on backs of those who perform most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines," the bench said.
SC passed the order on a petition seeking regularisation of jobs of people who had been performing peon/attendant duties for the commission since 1989. Allowing their plea, SC directed that their services be regularised from 2002, with arrears being paid until the date of regularisation/retirement/death, as the case may be.
"It must necessarily be noted ad-hocism thrives where administration is opaque. The state departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If constraint is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.
You may also like
'I ditched expensive Tiffany jewellery for £10 alternative and was floored'
US warships off Venezuela: Navy vessels head to Caribbean in Donald Trump's push against drug cartels; Maduro deploys 4.5 million militia
How can you complain on the Delhi Mitra App? In how many days do you get a solution?
Why does tea taste bland after eating sweets? Know the reason
Delhi CM Rekha Gupta Appears For First Time After Attack, Picture With BJP MPs Surfaces; See HERE
