The Delhi High Court has granted pensionary benefits to temporary employees who served for decades without regularization, calling the practice of prolonged temporary employment “pernicious” and contrary to international labor standards. The Court ruled that such treatment amounted to “manifest injustice” and could not be justified under the pretext of temporary status.
The petitioners, who started as casual laborers before achieving temporary status, argued that their long and uninterrupted service effectively made them regular employees in all but name. They challenged the denial of pensionary benefits on the grounds that their work was continuous, indispensable, and performed under sanctioned posts.
The bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which criticized the misuse of temporary contracts to avoid granting regular employee benefits. The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that, “continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities” warranted regularization and equitable treatment.
The judgment emphasized that keeping employees on temporary status for years not only violated international labor standards but also “exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.”
The respondents argued that under the State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) judgment, temporary employees had no vested right to regularization. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that Uma Devi was intended to prevent illegal backdoor appointments, not to deny rights to long-serving employees who were appointed through legitimate channels.
The Court clarified, “It cannot be said...that the petitioners’ appointments were even irregular, much less illegal. Their case, therefore, is clearly not one of backdoor entry, as would justify invocation of Uma Devi.” The bench highlighted that the petitioners were granted temporary status through due process and served in sanctioned posts, distinguishing their case from irregular or illegal appointments.
The Court ruled that the petitioners were “entitled to pensionary benefits as would be available to regular employees holding the posts held by the petitioners on the date of their superannuation.” It directed the respondents to calculate and release the pensionary benefits within eight weeks, failing which interest at 12% per annum would be applicable from the date of superannuation.
Advocates for the Petitioners: Adv. Ms. Annu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rubinder Ghumman and Adv. Ms. Celly Sadana
Advocates for the Respondents: SPC Mr. Avnish Singh, with Adv. Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anant Yadav and Adv. Ms. Pushplata Singh
Picture Source :
