01Facts
The respondents, representing Daily Rated Workers (DRMs) in the Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) Islands, initially sought payment of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance.
¶ 8In a previous round of litigation (MA/9/2020), a Division Bench directed the A&N Administration to frame a scheme for regularization based on a 1988 Office Memorandum (OM).
¶ 10Following contempt proceedings and Supreme Court intervention, the Union of India (UoI) disbursed ₹300 Crores for arrears.
¶ 16, 18The A&N Lieutenant Governor notified the "Regularization Scheme 2023".
¶ 17The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), UoI, refused to concur with the scheme via a letter dated December 13, 2023, claiming it violated the Umadevi (3) principles.
¶ 19, 24A Single Judge subsequently directed the UoI to accord approval, which was challenged in this appeal.
¶ 20-2102Issues
i.1. Whether the judgment dated December 19, 2022, in MA/9/2020 is binding on the A&N Administration and the UoI.
¶ 47(i)-(ii)ii.2. Whether the restrictions on regularization imposed in Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari are exhaustive or have evolved.
¶ 47(iii)iii.3. Whether the Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus to the State regarding policy decisions or non-approval of the 2023 Scheme.
¶ 47(iv)iv.4. Whether the 2023 Scheme is legally tenable under current labor jurisprudence.
¶ 47(v)03Law Applied
The court applied the doctrine of res judicata regarding finality of judgments between parties.
¶ 55Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [2006 (4) SCC 1], which restricted regularization of "backdoor" entries but allowed it for "irregular" (not illegal) appointments.
¶ 106, 112Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826], Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221], and Dharam Singh v. State of UP [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735], establishing that Umadevi (3) cannot be used as a shield for exploitation when work is perennial and integral to the State's functions.
¶ 114, 118, 122The court applied Article 76(2) regarding the role of the Attorney-General and the principle that policy decisions are subject to Article 14 scrutiny.
¶ 87, 138-139Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 Section 15
04Reasoning
The court found the A&N Administration bound by res judicata as it never appealed the 2022 direction to frame a scheme.
¶ 55, 75The UoI was held bound by acquiescence and estoppel, having sanctioned ₹300 Crores to comply with part of the earlier judgment and failing to challenge it with leave of court.
¶ 95, 99-100The 1988 OM itself recognized these workers as performing work equivalent to regular employees.
¶ 68, 70The court held that Umadevi (3) is not a "static monolithic behemoth" and must be read with subsequent rulings that favor "fair and humane resolution" for long-serving workers performing "sanctioned functions".
¶ 126, 114, 131The court rejected the "policy decision" defense, noting that the State cannot evade long-term obligations under the guise of fiscal policy when basic human rights and equality (Article 14) are involved.
¶ 142, 14905Holding
The High Court dismissed the UoI's appeal on all major points but modified the 2023 Scheme to ensure compliance with current law.
¶ 157-158The UoI must accord approval to the Scheme within 90 days.
¶ 158(i)The holding explicitly "reads up" the Scheme to clarify that "irregular appointments" eligible for regularization include those possessing minimum qualifications, working against "sanctioned functions" (not just posts), and performing perennial, integral tasks for a substantial length of time.
¶ 158-159The 2-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned and MAT/70/2026 was disposed of without costs.
¶ 5, 161Original Court PDF
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.vsANDAMAN SARVAJANIK NIRMAN VIBHAG MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
