In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India recently directed the regularization of a female worker who had served the Posts and Telegraph Department in Gujarat for over 30 years without being given permanent status. This decision underscores the principle of equality in employment, as it addressed clear discrimination between two similarly placed employees.
Background: A Tale of Two Employees
The case centers around a woman employed as a “Water Woman” (sweeper) by the Posts and Telegraph Department in Kutch Division, Bhuj, Gujarat, since February 1986. Despite her long tenure of more than 30 years, she was not regularized, even though another employee in a similar position, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who joined six years later, was granted the benefits of regularization.
The woman initially sought regularization after serving for 16 years, citing a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India. However, her request was denied by the Department, leading her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for redress.
The Struggle for Regularization
The Central Administrative Tribunal initially directed the Department to consider the woman’s case for conversion to a full-time position under a 1992 circular. This circular outlined a scheme for the regularization of part-time laborers, stating that part-time workers who worked five hours or more daily could be made full-time employees through duty readjustment.
Despite these instructions, the Department rejected the appellant’s plea, arguing that she was a part-time worker paid on a contingency basis and only worked four hours a day. Consequently, the appellant once again turned to the CAT, seeking absorption as a full-time employee under the aforementioned scheme. However, the CAT rejected her application, and the Gujarat High Court upheld this decision, leaving the appellant with no choice but to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Examination of Discrimination
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Department had discriminated between two similarly placed employees—one who was regularized and the other who was not. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the Department had regularized the services of Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who joined the same office in 1991, while denying the same benefits to the appellant.
The Department defended its actions by claiming that Smt. Vaghela’s regularization resulted from a specific direction by the CAT, which did not apply to the appellant. However, upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the CAT had only instructed the Department to consider Smt. Vaghela’s case for a full-time position, without mandating her regularization. The Court observed that the Department had independently decided to regularize Smt. Vaghela’s services as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), uninfluenced by the CAT’s order.
Court’s Ruling: Upholding the Right to Equality
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had indeed been discriminated against. The Court noted that the Department failed to provide any evidence showing that the nature of work or the hours worked by Smt. Vaghela differed from those of the appellant. Moreover, under the applicable circulars, any temporary employee who had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months was entitled to regularization.
The Court emphasized that the appellant had served the Department for over three decades under the same conditions as Smt. Vaghela. Given this, the denial of regularization to the appellant was a clear violation of her right to equality in employment.
Conclusion: A Victory for Employee Rights
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court ordered the Department to regularize the appellant’s employment, effective from the same date as Smt. Vaghela’s appointment as MTS. The Court also directed that all consequential benefits be extended to the appellant within three months of the order.
This decision is a significant victory for employee rights, particularly for those in temporary or part-time positions who are often overlooked for regularization despite long years of service. It reaffirms the principle that similarly placed employees must be treated equally, and that any deviation from this principle amounts to discrimination.
The case sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that employers must uphold fairness and equality in their treatment of all employees, regardless of their employment status. The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that long-serving temporary workers deserve recognition and should be given the same opportunities as their peers who have been granted regular status.