Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 431
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7138 OF 2025
R. IYYAPPAN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment dated
th
8 July, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
1
Madras in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019, whereby the
High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the
th
order dated 20 December, 2018, passed by the Central
2
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 326 of
2015, rejecting the appellants’ claim for regularisation of
their services.
Signature Not Verified
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “Tribunal”.
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.29
19:47:42 IST
Reason:
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 1 of 21
3. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present
appeal, are as follows: -
3.1. The appellants are daily-wage employees engaged
at different points of time between 1991 and 1997 in
the Mahendragiri Unit of the respondent-Centre. In
3
1993, respondent No. 1 formulated a scheme
conferring temporary status upon casual labourers.
Pursuant thereto, the appellants submitted
representations seeking regularisation of their services
in terms of the said scheme.
3.2. As no action was taken by the respondents, the
appellants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
455 of 2009, seeking regularisation of their services
along with all attendant and consequential benefits
available to regular employees.
th
3.3. By order dated 9 March, 2010, the Tribunal
allowed the application and directed the respondents to
formulate a scheme or issue ad-hoc rules within a
period of six months, by creating the requisite number
of posts, for engaging persons like the appellants on a
permanent basis for sporadic types of work.
3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed Writ
Petition No. 19634 of 2010 before the High Court,
3
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 2 of 21
th
which came to be dismissed by order dated 14 March,
2011. The Special Leave Petition filed before this Court,
being SLP No. 19200 of 2011, was also dismissed by
th
order dated 29 July, 2011, thereby attaining finality.
3.5. In purported compliance with the directions of the
Tribunal, respondent No. 1 framed the “Gang
Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work)
4
Scheme” on 3rd September, 2012.
3.6. Contending that the said scheme was not in
consonance with the directions of the Tribunal, the
appellants filed Contempt Application No. 101 of 2011
before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by
th
order dated 10 October, 2012.
3.7. In the meantime, the appellants expressed their
willingness to be governed by the said scheme.
3.8. The appellants thereafter challenged the validity of
the said scheme by filing O.A. No. 326 of 2015 before
th
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 14 July,
2016, dismissed the application. The appellants carried
the matter to the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.
th
8163 of 2017, which was allowed on 25 April, 2017,
4
For short, “Gang Labourers Scheme”.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 3 of 21
and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
th
3.9. Upon remand, the Tribunal, by order dated 20
December, 2018, once again dismissed the application.
A Review Application No. 11 of 2019 was also
dismissed.
3.10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Writ
Petition No. 31674 of 2019 before the High Court,
seeking quashing of the Gang Labourers Scheme and
consequential directions for creation of posts,
retrospective appointment, and regularisation of their
services.
th
3.11. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 8
July, 2024, dismissed the writ petition.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: -
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
assailed the judgment of the High Court and advanced the
following submissions: -
5.1. It was contended that, in the first round of
litigation, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to
regularise the services of the appellants by creating the
requisite number of posts, along with retrospective
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 4 of 21
effect and all consequential benefits. According to the
appellants, the “Gang Labourers Scheme” framed by
the respondents is contrary to the mandate of the
Tribunal, which has attained finality upon affirmation
by this Court.
5.2. It was further submitted that the continued
engagement of the appellants on a daily-wage basis,
without regularisation, is violative of Article 23 of the
Constitution. The State, it was urged, cannot engage
individuals for work of a perennial nature over long
periods, without sanctioning posts or framing
appropriate rules, thereby subjecting them to
exploitative conditions.
5.3. It was lastly contended that the directions issued
by the Tribunal in the earlier round unequivocally
mandated regularisation of the appellants’ services
with retrospective effect.
On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the appeal
be allowed.
6. Per contra , Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents,
advanced the following submissions: -
6.1. It was contended that the appellants were engaged
only for performing sporadic and intermittent work,
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 5 of 21
such as loading, unloading, and shifting of materials,
on a need basis, and were never appointed against any
sanctioned posts for regular or permanent work.
6.2. It was further submitted that there exists no
employer–employee relationship between the
appellants and the respondent-organisation in the
strict legal sense, and therefore, the appellants cannot
claim any right to regularisation.
6.3. It was also urged that the “Gang Labourers
Scheme” framed by the respondents is fully in
consonance with the directions issued by the Tribunal
and subsequently affirmed by the High Court. Under
the said scheme, the appellants are engaged for
sporadic work up to the age of 60 years, with a
provision for consideration against future vacancies to
the extent specified therein. It was, therefore,
submitted that the respondents have duly complied
with the directions to frame a scheme regulating the
engagement and service conditions of such workers.
On these grounds, learned Additional Solicitor General
prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of
the High Court be upheld.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 6 of 21
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: -
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the material placed on record.
8. The fulcrum of the present controversy rests upon the
th
true import and scope of the order dated 9 March, 2010,
passed by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. It is
rd
pursuant to the said order that the respondents, on 3
September, 2012, framed the “Gang Labourers Scheme”.
Being aggrieved by the said scheme, the appellants have
once again approached the courts, contending that the
directions of the Tribunal have not been implemented in
their true letter and spirit.
9. According to the appellants, the Tribunal, by its order
th
dated 9 March, 2010, had unequivocally directed the
respondents to grant permanent status to the appellants.
This contention, however, is seriously disputed by the
respondents, who submit that the Tribunal did not
mandate regularisation, but merely directed the
formulation of a scheme to regulate and streamline the
engagement of labourers performing sporadic work.
10. The core question that, therefore, arises for our
consideration is whether the directions issued by the
th
Tribunal in its order dated 9 March, 2010, mandated
regularisation of the appellants’ services, and, if so, whether
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 7 of 21
the “Gang Labourers Scheme” framed by the respondents
satisfies such mandate.
11. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative,
th
namely, that the Tribunal by its order dated 9 March,
2010 did not direct regularisation of the appellants, the very
foundation of the appellants’ claim would collapse.
12. Since the said decision of the Tribunal is central to the
resolution of the present controversy, it would be apposite
to reproduce the relevant extracts thereof: -
“7. Admittedly the respondents are not disputing
the engagement of 34 Gang labourers to attend to
sporadic nature of work such as loading,
unloading, shifting of materials packing materials,
etc. The said labourers are engaged at the main
Security gate as per the day-to-day requisition and
they are allowed inside the premises through the
token system for performance of such sporadic
types of work and they will return after
surrendering the tokens at the Security gate. The
applicants are engaged on day-to-day basis depend
upon the daily needs of the respondent office. But,
in the absence any specific rule or any scheme the
applicants have no right to claim regularization of
their services simply because they have been
engaged for-a-period ranging from 14 to 26 years.
But from the records, it is seen that continuous
engagement of labourers are made. The continuous
engagement of labourers itself proves that regular
& continuous work is available in the respondent
office. It is also accepted by the respondents that
crucial R&D activities such as assembly,
integration and testing of engines and realization
of different stages of Launch Vehicles such as
PSLV, GSLV and Space crafts such as INSAT
systems are carried out in the Mahendragiri Unit
of LPSC throughout the year. It is also contended
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 8 of 21
that the Mahendragiri facility of LPSC comprises of
Offices, Plants and Laboratories and this Unit is
declared as Prohibited Area under the Official
Secrets Act, considering the national importance,
security aspect and the need to carry out the
research activities smoothly without any external
disturbance. Further it is contended by the
respondents that the entire campus of LPSC,
Mahendragiri is spread over a vast area of about
4271 acres, and the entire area is declared as a
prohibited place under the Official Secrets Act
Therefore, the watch and ward duty is entrusted to
the Central Industrial Security force and entry into
the campus is regulated by issuance of identity
cards for the regular employees as a security
measure. The respondents also contended that no
orders appointing the Gang labourers in their
organization have ever been issued and no records
are available with them regarding engagement of
any particular labourers. Therefore, employing
different daily rated employees on day-to-day basis
would be a threat to the security. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that in order to avoid
such security threat and to employ applicants
like persons by considering their plights, the
respondents should formulate a scheme or issue
ad-hoc rules by creating the required number of
posts, to employ such persons for these
sporadic types of work on permanent basis. It is
also admitted by the respondents that to carry
out these sporadic types of work, there is no
need to engage qualified and skilled persons.
The fact remains that the applicants are
engaged by the respondents for a period ranging
from 14 to 26 years and they have rich
experience in such types of works. Therefore,
the applicants may also be considered for such
appointment on preferential basis as they have
put in nearly 14 to 26 years of experience and
considering the plights of the applicants if any
age relaxation is required that may also be
considered by the respondents for making such
appointment. Such formulation of scheme on
ad-hoc rules will put an end to the miseries of
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 9 of 21
the applicants Therefore we direct that the
respondents should complete this exercise of
framing a scheme or ad-hoc rules for engaging
such persons on permanent basis within a
period of six months and till such time the
applicants should be continued to be engaged
depend upon the requirements. ”
( emphasis supplied )
13. A careful reading of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal
reveals that it approached the issue of engagement of daily-
wage labourers in two distinct facets. In the first, having
regard to the peculiar facts of the case, including the nature
of duties performed and the security considerations
involved, the Tribunal directed the respondents to frame an
appropriate scheme or ad-hoc rules within a stipulated
period so as to regulate the engagement of such persons on
a more structured and enduring basis. The underlying
intent was to ensure that the process of engagement is
institutionalised, transparent, and free from arbitrariness.
14. In the second facet, the Tribunal took note of the
prolonged service rendered by the appellants and the
experience gained by them over the years. It is in this
context that the Tribunal observed that the appellants may
be considered on a preferential basis for such engagement,
taking into account their 14 to 26 years of experience, while
leaving the ultimate appointment to be governed by the
scheme so framed.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 10 of 21
15. The aforesaid directions, when read in their entirety and
in conjunction with the reasoning adopted by the High
Court, leave no manner of doubt that the fulcrum of the
mandate was the creation of requisite posts to regularise
and systematise the engagement of persons performing
sporadic work. The emphasis was not merely on framing a
scheme in abstract, but on structuring such engagement
through the establishment of sanctioned posts, thereby
ensuring continuity, accountability, and security
considerations in a sensitive establishment. The High
Court, while taking note of the long years of service
rendered by the appellants, coupled with the admitted
position that the nature of duties did not require specialised
qualifications, reinforced the necessity of creating posts and
making appointments thereto on a permanent footing. The
direction to accord preferential consideration, including age
relaxation, was clearly ancillary to this primary mandate of
post creation.
16. Thus, the essence of the directions issued in the earlier
round of litigation was to bring about a transition from an
ad hoc , daily-wage arrangement to a structured regime
founded upon duly created posts within a stipulated time
frame. Any scheme that falls short of this requirement, by
merely regulating engagement without providing for such
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 11 of 21
post creation, cannot be said to be in compliance with the
letter and spirit of the said directions.
17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that respondent
No. 3, namely the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, is a
premier research and development unit under respondent
No. 2, the Indian Space Research Organisation, and its
campus at Mahendragiri has been declared a prohibited
area under the Official Secrets Act. The Tribunal, therefore,
sought to balance the competing considerations of
institutional security and the long-standing engagement of
the appellants. In that backdrop, it directed the
respondents to formulate a scheme or ad-hoc rules by
creating the requisite number of posts to engage such
persons for sporadic work on a more permanent footing. At
the same time, it emphasised that due regard be given to
the experience of the appellants by extending preferential
consideration, including relaxation in age, where necessary.
18. The Tribunal was, therefore, categorical in directing that
the scheme to be framed by the respondents must provide
for engagement on a more permanent footing. The said
directions attained finality upon dismissal of the challenge
laid by the respondents before the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 19634 of 2010, and thereafter before this Court
in SLP (Civil) No. 19200 of 2011.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 12 of 21
19. In addition, the High Court, while dismissing the writ
petition laying challenge to the decision of Tribunal, also
took note of the plight of the appellants, observing that
despite being engaged for long periods, they continued as
daily-wage labourers with a sense of insecurity and the
constant threat of termination. It, therefore, affirmed the
correctness of the Tribunal’s direction to create posts and
to engage such persons on a more permanent basis,
particularly having regard to the security concerns in a
highly sensitive establishment.
20. From the aforesaid, it becomes evident that the Tribunal
intended to bring an end to the practice of engaging
labourers on a purely daily-wage or ad hoc basis for work of
a recurring nature. The respondents were required to frame
a scheme or ad-hoc rules for creation of the requisite
number of posts, and to regulate engagement against such
posts on a more permanent basis. At the same time, the
Tribunal envisaged that the appellants be accorded
preferential consideration, having regard to their long years
of service, including relaxation in age, where warranted.
21. The issue that, therefore, arises for consideration is
whether the “Gang Labourers Scheme” introduced by the
respondents in pursuance of the Tribunal’s directions
satisfies and conforms to the mandate contained therein.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 13 of 21
22. It is in this backdrop that the respondents, after
exhausting their challenge up to this Court, framed the
“Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work)
rd
Scheme, 2012” on 3 September, 2012, providing for the
manner in which such labourers would be engaged for
sporadic work in the respondent-Centre.
23. A perusal of Clause 4 of the “Gang Labourers Scheme”
indicates that the engagement contemplated therein is of a
temporary nature. For the sake of convenience, the relevant
extract of the said clause is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“4. Employment on Temporary basis
(i) All Gang Labourers who are in engagement on
the date of issue of this Scheme and who have
rendered continuous service of at least one year,
which means that they must have been engaged for
a period of at least 206 days, (since the offices of
ISRO are observing 5 days a week) would be
employed on temporary basis till they attain the
age of 60 years.
(ii) Such employment on temporary basis would be
without reference to the creation/availability of
regular erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts.
(iii) Employment on temporary basis would not
involve any change in duties and responsibilities of
Gang Labourers who are engaged for performing
sporadic nature of work such. as
loading/unloading, shifting of
materials/equipment, stacking/packing/cleaning
of materials/equipment, ferrying documents from
one place to another, etc. as per day-to-day
requirement of various user Divisions/Entitles of
LPSC.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 14 of 21
(iv) Engagement of Gang Labourers will be on daily
rates of pay and they may be deployed anywhere
within LPSC Mahendragiri/Vallamala as the case
may be based on actual requirement
(v) Gang Labourers who are employed on
temporary basis shall not be brought on to the
permanent establishment unless they are selected
through regular selection process for erstwhile
Group 'D' posts on preferential basis as per Dept of
Space/Govt of India instructions on filling up of
such posts issued frons time to time.
(vi) There shall not be any age limit prescribed for
employment on temporary basis as per the said
scheme However, for the purpose of subsequent
regularisation, if any, the conditions regarding age
and educational qualifications prescribed in the
relevant Recruitment Norms/Rules will apply. ”
24. It is thus evident that the scheme framed by the
respondents contemplates engagement on a temporary
basis. This is clearly at variance with the directions issued
th
by the Tribunal in its order dated 9 March, 2010, which
stood affirmed by the High Court and this Court by orders
th th
dated 14 March, 2011 and 29 July, 2011, respectively.
The Tribunal had categorically directed the respondents to
create the requisite number of posts and to frame a scheme
providing for engagement on a permanent footing within a
stipulated period.
25. In our considered view, the respondents have failed to
fully comply with the said directions, which had attained
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 15 of 21
finality. It was precisely this aspect that required scrutiny
by the High Court in the subsequent round of litigation.
26. In our considered view, the High Court has failed to
properly appreciate the factual matrix as well as the issue
arising for its determination. While dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellants, the High Court returned the
following findings: -
i. That the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka
5
v. Umadevi , lays down that there is no fundamental
right to be absorbed in service, and that no right to
employment flows from Article 21 of the Constitution.
ii. That the mere length of ad hoc , temporary, or casual
engagement cannot be a ground for regularisation or
absorption in permanent service, and that judicial
directions to that effect would run contrary to the
constitutional scheme and perpetuate illegality.
iii. That the “Gang Labourers Scheme” introduced by the
respondents ensures continued engagement of the
appellants till they attain the age of 60 years, along
with preferential consideration against future Group-
D posts.
iv. That the initial engagement of the appellants was not
made in accordance with any prescribed recruitment
5
(2006) 4 SCC 1
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 16 of 21
process and amounted to a backdoor entry, rendering
their claim for regularisation from the date of initial
engagement legally untenable.
27. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has clearly
transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction by re-entering the
merits of the issue as to whether the appellants’ services
could be regularised. This approach overlooks the fact that
the directions issued by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the
High Court and this Court in the earlier round, had already
attained finality. The scope of consideration in the
subsequent proceedings was, therefore, confined to
examining compliance with those directions. It was wholly
impermissible for the High Court to reopen the issue on
merits or to revisit the question of regularisation at that
stage.
28. Before parting with the matter, we must express our
serious disapproval of the manner in which the respondents
have dealt with the present case. The obligation of the State
to act as a model employer is not a mere exhortation but
flows directly from the guarantee of equality enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has, time and
again, emphasised that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness
and mandates fairness, non-discrimination, and reasoned
decision-making in all State actions.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 17 of 21
28.1. It is, therefore, a matter of concern that, despite
the passage of time and repeated judicial
pronouncements, these foundational principles
continue to be disregarded in service matters. The
present case exemplifies how a litigant, often placed at
the margins of the system, is compelled to traverse a
prolonged and arduous legal journey merely to secure
what is justly due. In the present case, the directions
issued by the Tribunal, which attained finality upon
dismissal of the challenge by this Court, ought to have
been implemented in their true spirit. Instead, the
respondents adopted a course that effectively diluted
the substance of those directions, prolonging the
dispute for years.
28.2. We are reminded of the humble beginnings of
India's space programme. In 1963, when the first
sounding rocket was launched from Thumba, its
components were transported to the launch site on a
bicycle. Similarly, in 1981, during the testing of India’s
first experimental communication satellite APPLE, the
satellite was placed on a bullock cart to create a non-
magnetic environment for antenna pattern tests in an
open field. These anecdotes, rooted in historical fact,
are not mere curiosities rather they encapsulate the
spirit of ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unrelenting
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 18 of 21
determination that defined our early scientific
endeavours. They reflect the profound struggles faced
by our scientists and the entire ecosystem that
supported them in an era of limited resources.
28.3. In celebrating the glory of our scientific fraternity,
we must not overlook the invisible yet indispensable
contributions of every individual who formed part of
that larger enterprise. The success of a rocket or a
satellite mission is not the sole outcome of high-level
design and propulsion engineering. It is equally the
result of a seamless chain of support, from the
transportation of materials to the maintenance of
facilities and the myriad ancillary tasks that ensure
operational efficiency. The last man standing in this
chain, often belonging to Group-C or Group-D services,
performs duties that may appear sporadic or peripheral
in isolation. However, without their dedicated support,
the very materials and logistics essential for scientific
advancement would falter in reaching the laboratories
and assembly halls of our scientists.
28.4. To disregard or discriminate against such
individuals in matters of service recognition would be
to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India
to the Moon and beyond. The State, as a model
employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 19 of 21
workforce, those who have contributed, however
indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount
importance, with arbitrariness or indifference. Denying
them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service
status, while reaping the benefits of their labour,
strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public
employment.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS: -
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, our conclusions are
summarised as follows: -
I. The “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types
of Work) Scheme, 2012”, insofar as it is inconsistent
with the directions issued by the Tribunal for
engagement on a permanent basis, is hereby set aside.
The respondents are consequently directed to
regularise the services of the appellants and grant
them permanent status with effect from 9th
September, 2010, being the outer limit fixed by the
Tribunal for framing the scheme, within a period of
four weeks from the date of this order.
II. Clause 2 of the said Scheme, which contemplates
engagement on a temporary basis, being contrary to
the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation,
is also set aside.
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 20 of 21
III. Since the Scheme was framed pursuant to judicial
directions which have attained finality, the benefit of
this judgment shall also enure to all similarly situated
persons engaged under the said Scheme.
th
30. Accordingly, the judgment dated 8 July, 2024, passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Writ Petition No. 31674 of 2019 is set aside.
31. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
32. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 29, 2026
C A @ SLP(C)No.7138/2025 Page 21 of 21