Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and Anr.
Background
Daily-wage workers (plumbers, carpenters, sweepers, pump operators, etc.) at the university, a successor body to the former Gujarat Agricultural University, sought regularization of their jobs after having completed over 10 years of continuous service. A scheme for phased regularization of such daily wagers had earlier been approved by the Supreme Court itself in a 2001 judgment (Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar). The university argued that after the Court's later landmark ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (which restricted regularization to those on duly sanctioned posts), it was no longer obliged to regularize these particular daily wagers, especially since no further posts had been created beyond an initial batch of 890.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the university's argument, holding that its own earlier 2001 judgment approving the regularization scheme was final and binding between these very parties ("inter partes"), and that the general principles in Umadevi could not be used to escape a specific, already-settled direction of the Court. The Court found the university had allowed similarly-placed daily wagers to be regularized in 2011 while denying the same benefit to the present respondents: a discriminatory approach the High Court had rightly flagged. Since the obligation to regularize all eligible daily wagers phase-wise (as additional posts were created) continued and had not been fully discharged, the appeals were dismissed and the High Court's order upholding regularization was affirmed.
Lesson Learnt
Once the Supreme Court approves a specific regularization scheme and it becomes final between the parties, an employer cannot later invoke a broader, later Supreme Court ruling (like Umadevi) to wriggle out of that earlier, case-specific obligation, and treating similarly-situated long-term employees differently invites judicial scrutiny for discrimination.