Ratnank Mishra & Ors. vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Background
The appellants were engaged between 2004 and 2005 as ad-hoc Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks (Class-III posts) in the Allahabad High Court, appointed directly by the Chief Justice under special rule-making powers rather than through open competitive recruitment. Over the years, numerous similarly appointed employees were regularized following a High Court Division Bench ruling and a Committee report, but the appellants' claims for regularization were rejected, and their services were eventually terminated in 2015. The High Court's own Division Bench, and later a Single Judge, upheld the denial of regularization to these appellants, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the distinction drawn between the appellants and other similarly placed employees, who were appointed through the identical process and performed identical work but were regularized, was arbitrary and lacked any reasonable or intelligible basis, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16. It rejected the High Court's argument that the post had since become a "dead cadre" as a valid reason to deny relief, since the discrimination predated that development. While acknowledging that regularization is normally a policy matter where courts exercise restraint, the Court held this was an exceptional case given the appellants' decade-plus of service and the clear discrimination, and invoked its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. It set aside the High Court's judgments and directed reinstatement of the appellants, regularization of their service one year from their respective appointment dates, and all consequential benefits (seniority, promotions, pay fixation, retiral benefits) except back-pay for the period not worked, within eight weeks.
Lesson Learnt
Even in matters normally left to an employer's policy discretion, courts can step in and order relief, including for government employees denied benefits given to similarly placed colleagues, when the differential treatment is arbitrary and violates the constitutional principle that equals must be treated equally; however, the Court made clear this ruling was based on this case's specific facts and is not to be treated as a general precedent.