Final judicial directions for parity override general legal precedents restricting the regularization of casual employees.

The Petitioner was engaged as a casual laborer by Respondent No. 1 (BSNL) in 1995 and served until 2001 when his unit closed

Despite being senior to Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi in the seniority list, the Petitioner was not re-engaged when his juniors were

Following a 2005 High Court judgment in W.P.(C) 11774/2004, which found BSNL’s actions discriminatory and directed "same treatment" as his juniors, the Petitioner was re-engaged in 2006 and made a full-time casual laborer in 2007

However, BSNL refused to regularize his services, even though the aforementioned juniors had been regularized

The Petitioner challenged this denial before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which dismissed his application on 05.09.2022, holding that casual employees have no vested right to regularization under the Uma Devi doctrine

The Petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226

1. Whether, in light of the final judgment dated 26.10.2005, the Respondents were legally obligated to grant the Petitioner parity in regularization with his juniors

2. Whether the failure to extend regularization to the Petitioner, while granting it to similarly situated juniors, constitutes hostile discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

3. Whether the restrictive principles of regularization laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi can override a binding inter partes judicial direction

The court applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16

It relied on the principle of finality of judicial determinations, asserting that a positive direction in a judgment that has attained finality must be implemented in letter and spirit

The court further considered the precedent in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which prohibits treating similarly situated employees differently without a rational basis

Regarding regularization, the court distinguished the general prohibition against irregular appointments in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) from cases where a specific inter partes direction for parity already exists

The court reasoned that the expression "same treatment" in the 2005 judgment was not narrow and necessarily included regularization, as that benefit had been extended to the Petitioner's juniors

Because the 2005 judgment was never challenged, it remained binding on BSNL

The court found that the Tribunal erred by treating the Petitioner’s claim as a fresh plea for regularization in a vacuum, failing to recognize that the issue of parity had already been adjudicated

The court emphasized that while Uma Devi sets general standards for public employment, it cannot be used as a tool to defeat a prior, binding court order directed at specific parties

Since the Petitioner was senior to regularized employees and had rendered continuous service since 2006, his exclusion lacked any "intelligible differentia" and amounted to hostile discrimination

It held that the Respondents were under a binding obligation to extend parity to the Petitioner based on the 2005 judgment

The court directed the Respondents to regularize the Petitioner's services at par with Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi within three months, including all consequential benefits admissible in law