Ratnank Mishra & Others Vs High Court of Judicature At Allahabad (Supreme Court of India)
Equal Appointments, Unequal Treatment Struck Down — Supreme Court Orders Regularisation of Allahabad HC Staff Using Article 142
The Supreme Court allowed a batch of civil appeals filed by ad-hoc Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks of the Allahabad High Court, holding that denial of regularisation to the Appellants while granting the same benefit to other similarly placed employees was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution.
The Appellants had been appointed between 2004–2005 by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in exercise of powers u/s 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the Allahabad High Court Officers & Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1976 — the same channel through which several other employees were appointed and later regularised. However, based on a Committee report, the Appellants were placed in a separate category and denied regularisation on the ground that their appointments were labelled “ad-hoc” and that the U.P. Regularisation Rules, 1979 were inapplicable.
The Supreme Court found this classification to be artificial and unsustainable, noting that all three categories of employees were appointed through the same source, performed identical duties, and were governed by the same rules. Merely differing stipulations in appointment letters could not justify hostile discrimination. The Court emphasised that High Courts, as constitutional institutions, must act as model employers and strictly adhere to principles of equality and non-arbitrariness.
Rejecting the High Court’s stand that regularisation was a matter of discretion or policy, and noting that the Appellants had already rendered long years of service and were even discontinued in 2015, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers u/Article 142 to do complete justice.
Accordingly, the Court directed reinstatement of the Appellants, regularisation of their services after one year from their respective initial appointment dates, and grant of all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments & retiral benefits (excluding back wages for the non-working period), with compliance mandated within eight weeks. The ruling was expressly confined to the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated as a precedent
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
