Unequal Regularisation Not Justified By Appointment Terms | SC

Case Details: Ratnank Mishra vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [2025] 181 taxmann.com 751 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
• Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Ms. Deveshi Chand, Advs., Nischal Kumar Neeraj & Shantanu Sagar, AORs for the Appellant.
• Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR, Abhisek Mohanty, Ansh Rajauria & Anupam Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court to the posts of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks on an ad hoc basis, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules.

The appellants were denied regularisation despite several similarly situated employees having been regularised from time to time. The appellants contended that they were singled out without any reasonable justification and were unfairly denied regularisation.

The High Court, by the impugned order, held that since the post of “Routine Grade Clerk” had been declared a “dead cadre”, the appellants were not entitled to regularisation. It was, however, noted that numerous employees identically appointed as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks under orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court, in exercise of powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, had been regularised.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that merely because appointment orders of employees contained different stipulations regarding the nature of appointment, such as whether it was labelled ad hoc or otherwise, or whether it contained a condition regarding an examination, could not be a rational basis for differential treatment for the purpose of regularisation when the channel of appointment was identical.

It was further held that such a distinction, based solely on stipulations contained in the appointment letters, when the nature of work performed was identical, violated the fundamental principle that equals must be treated equally, and that persons similarly circumstanced should not be treated differently without a rational and intelligible differentia.

The Court also observed that the High Court, being a constitutional court, was expected to uphold the principles of equality and fairness in its own administrative functioning and to exemplify the standards of a model employer. The denial of regularisation to the appellants, when similarly placed persons appointed through the same channel had been regularised, constituted a violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was liable to be set aside and, in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142, directed that the appellants be regularised.

List of Cases Reviewed

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SA-411-2015, dated 14-10-2015 (para 34) set aside.

List of Cases Referred to

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 taxmann.com 2495 (SC) (para 6)
• Regularization of Class IV Employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, In re [Neutral Citation No. – 2013:AHC:179951-FB] (para 21).