Summary and Analysis of Dharam Singh & Ors vs State of UP & Anr
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 998
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: August 19, 2025
2. Related Laws and Constitutional Principles
This judgment is a landmark ruling on the rights of long-term temporary government employees. It interprets and applies the following principles:
Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law, equality of opportunity in public employment, and the right to life and personal liberty. The Court held that perpetuating insecure, temporary employment for perennial work violates these fundamental rights.
Precedent of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others (2006): The Court clarified that the Umadevi judgment, which restricts back-door regularizations, should not be used as a shield by the government to justify exploiting workers for decades. It distinguished between "illegal appointments" (which Umadevi forbids) and the failure to regularize workers in "irregular engagements" for perennial work, which is an arbitrary state action.
Doctrine of Arbitrariness: The Court held that the government's decision-making, even on financial matters, must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and consider all relevant facts. A blanket refusal to create posts without justification is subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellants: Dharam Singh and five others who worked as daily-wage Class-III and Class-IV employees (Drivers, Peons, Attendants) for the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission since 1989-1992.
Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh and the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (later merged into a new body).
Origin: The appellants challenged the State government's refusal to sanction permanent posts for them, despite their decades of continuous service. The High Court had dismissed their petition, treating it as a simple plea for regularization and citing a lack of rules and vacancies.
Final Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the government's orders, and issued specific, forceful directions for the immediate regularization of the appellants with full back wages and benefits.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's decision was based on several core legal issues, which it explained in clear terms.
The Core Legal Error: Mischaracterizing the Case
The High Court treated the case as a mere plea for "regularization" without sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court corrected this, stating that the real challenge was to the State government's arbitrary refusal to sanction posts in the first place, despite the employer Commission's own repeated requests since 1991. The Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not examining the legality of this refusal.
Arbitrary Refusal to Sanction Posts
The State government had rejected the Commission's requests to create posts solely on the grounds of "financial constraints" and a "ban on new posts." The Supreme Court found this arbitrary and unreasonable because:
Perennial Nature of Work: The work performed by the appellants (scrutinizing applications, dispatch, driving) was continuous, essential, and integral to the Commission's functioning for over 30 years.
State's Own Contradiction: The government allowed the Commission to use daily wagers for permanent work for decades, effectively admitting the need for the posts while refusing to formally create them. The Court stated the government cannot "balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions."
Lack of Application of Mind: The refusal orders were "non-speaking," meaning they did not engage with the specific facts, the Commission's justification, or consider any alternatives.
Clarifying the Umadevi Precedent
The Court strongly rebutted the High Court's use of the Umadevi judgment to deny relief. It explained:
Umadevi was meant to prevent illegal back-door appointments, not to bless the exploitative perpetuation of temporary employment for work that is plainly permanent.
The Court cited its recent decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which caution that Umadevi cannot be a justification for "long-term ad-hocism" and the use of outsourcing to deny workers their rights.
The situation here was not one of illegal appointment but of the State's "failure, for years, to put its house in order."
Existence of Vacancies and Unequal Treatment
The High Court's finding of "no vacancies" was contradicted by evidence. An RTI reply and an application filed in the Supreme Court showed vacant posts and also revealed that other similarly situated daily wagers in the same Commission had been regularized earlier. The Court held that this "selective regularization" was a clear violation of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion and Directions
In summary, the Supreme Court held that the State's actions were arbitrary and violated the appellants' fundamental rights to equality and a dignified life. It criticized the culture of "ad-hocism" and outsourcing of perennial work as exploitative and unconstitutional.
To provide complete justice and prevent further delay through bureaucratic technicalities, the Court issued very specific and unusual directions:
Regularization: All appellants were to be regularized effective from April 24, 2002 (the date of the first High Court order in their case).
Supernumerary Posts: The State was directed to immediately create supernumerary (temporary additional) posts to accommodate them without any excuses.
Full Financial Benefits: They were to be paid the full arrears of the difference between their daily wages and a regular employee's salary from 2002 until their regularization, retirement, or death, with interest if payment was delayed.
Benefits for Retired/Deceased: Retired employees were to have their pensions recalculated, and legal heirs of deceased employees were to receive all arrears and terminal benefits.
Strict Compliance: The Principal Secretary of the department was ordered to file a sworn affidavit of compliance with these directions within four months.
The judgment is a powerful affirmation that the government, as a "model employer," must act with fairness and transparency and cannot use financial excuses to deny justice and dignity to its long-serving workforce.