STATE AS MODEL EMPLOYER MUST IMPLEMENT FINAL JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS FOR REGULARISATION OF LONG-TERM CASUAL WORKERS

The appellants are daily-wage "Gang Labourers" engaged between 1991 and 1997 at the Mahendragiri Unit of the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), a sensitive ISRO facility

In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the respondents to formulate a scheme/rules to engage such persons on a "permanent basis" due to the perennial nature of work and security risks associated with unregulated daily-wage entry

This order was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2011

In purported compliance, the respondents framed the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012," which only offered "temporary status" until age 60 without creating regular posts

The appellants challenged this scheme as being non-compliant with the 2010 mandate. The High Court dismissed the challenge, citing Umadevi to deny regularisation

1. Whether the directions issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 9th March 2010 mandated the regularisation of the appellants’ services or merely the framing of an engagement scheme

2. Whether the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012" satisfies the judicial mandate of creating posts and providing permanent status

The Court applied the principle of Finality of Judgment, holding that once a judicial direction attains finality, its merits cannot be reopened in subsequent compliance proceedings

It emphasized the State's duty as a "Model Employer" under Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness

While acknowledging the precedent in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi regarding regularisation, the Court distinguished it by holding that specific, final judicial directions to create posts cannot be circumvented by invoking general prohibitions against "backdoor entries"

The Court found that the 2010 Tribunal order unequivocally mandated the creation of sanctioned posts to transition workers from ad-hoc status to a "permanent basis" for security and equity reasons

The respondents' 2012 Scheme, by offering only "temporary basis" employment and expressly stating it was "without reference to the creation/availability of regular... posts," was a direct violation of that mandate

The Court critiqued the High Court for re-litigating the merits of regularisation under Umadevi instead of strictly enforcing the finalized 2010 order

Furthermore, the Court noted that the critical nature of ISRO’s work required a recognized, stable workforce, and denying such status to those who supported national scientific endeavors was arbitrary and indifferent

It held that the respondents failed to comply with the final 2010 judicial directions

The Court ordered the respondents to regularise the appellants' services and grant them permanent status effective from 9th September 2010 (the original deadline set by the Tribunal) within four weeks

It further directed that this benefit enure to all similarly situated persons under the Scheme