State Must Extend Regularization Benefits to Identically Situated Employees to Act as a Model Employer

A batch of 47 workmen successfully sought reinstatement through the Labour Court after their termination was set aside.

Following reinstatement, the Department of Telecommunications introduced a scheme for regularization.

All 47 workmen applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for regularization under this scheme, but their applications were initially rejected.

While 36 of these workmen successfully challenged the CAT order before the High Court and obtained regularization (a decision upheld by the Supreme Court), the remaining 11 respondents did not initially appeal the CAT’s dismissal.

Subsequently, these 11 workmen filed a fresh application before the CAT seeking parity with their 36 colleagues. The CAT allowed their application, holding that they were identically situated.

The Department challenged this order, arguing that the earlier dismissal had attained finality.

1. Whether the Department is bound to extend the benefits of a regularization scheme to employees who did not initially challenge a prior adverse order, but are identically situated to colleagues who successfully litigated the matter.

2. Whether the denial of regularization to a small subset of an identically situated batch of employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle of the State acting as a "Model Employer," which requires the government to act fairly and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates Equality before the Law and prohibits discrimination by the State among a group of identically situated individuals.

The Court acknowledged the Department’s technical argument that the initial dismissal of the respondents' claims by the CAT had attained finality because it was not challenged.

The Court reasoned that the Department, as an instrumentality of the State, must act as a model employer and ensure parity among its staff.

The Court found that once the High Court and Supreme Court had upheld the regularization scheme for 36 members of the same batch, it became incumbent upon the Department to extend that benefit to the remaining 11.

The Court determined that since all 47 workmen were "identically situated," treating the 11 respondents differently solely because they lacked the resources or initiative to appeal earlier would be "grossly unfair" and a "violative of Article 14".

The High Court dismissed the Department's petition, thereby confirming that the 11 respondents are entitled to regularization on the same terms as their 36 counterparts.