Not regularising services of eligible employees when others are regularised, patently discriminatory: SC
New Delhi, July 12: The act of regularising the services of only 35 employees when 65 were found to be entitled for regularisation was held to be “patently discriminatory” and “violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”, by the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala was considering the appeal filed by a group of employees whose services were not regularized by the Income Tax department on the ground of non-availability of post.
“When the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that 65 persons were entitled to be regularised, the act of regularising the services of only 35 employees and not regularising the services of other employees, including the appellants, is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
The appellants, who have completed service of more than ten years, challenged the Patna High Court’s view that there is no contempt of the court when only 35 out of 65 employees are regularized, since only 35 vacancies were available.
Before the high court, the remaining employees had filed contempt petitions alleging that non-regularisation of services amounted to contempt of court for not following the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.
In Uma Devi case, the top court had permitted a one time measure to be conducted for regularisation of the services of employees who had completed more than ten years in service.
In the instant again, the Supreme Court declined to accept the government’s submission that since posts were not available (and have been abolished thereafter), the appellants could not have been regularised.
“The act of regularising the services of some employees and not regularising the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” reiterated the apex court.
It directed regularisation of the appellants with backwages and other consequential benefits.
