Daily-wage workers' phase-wise absorption scheme and unequal regularization treatment upheld; appeal dismissed, eligible workers entitled to regularization.

Daily-wage workers sought regularization. The SC held that, although Umadevi permits one-time regularization only for irregular appointees who have completed 10 years in sanctioned posts, the matter was governed by the earlier SC directions approving a State scheme for phase-wise absorption of eligible daily wagers, under which the right to regularization subsists until all eligible workers are absorbed, with staggered post creation permissible. The HC correctly found impermissible discrimination where similarly situated daily wagers had already been regularized while eligible others were denied the same benefit. The SC found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal, upholding the workers' entitlement to regularization under the scheme.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the daily-wage workers were entitled to regularization under the State's scheme approved by the Court, notwithstanding the university's plea of absence of further sanctioned posts and reliance on the later decision in Umadevi.

(ii) Whether the university could deny regularization to otherwise eligible daily wagers when similarly situated persons had been regularized under the same scheme, and whether the High Court's directions recognizing such right warranted interference.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Entitlement to regularization under the approved scheme despite reliance on Umadevi and alleged non-availability of sanctioned posts

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered the binding effect and continued enforceability of its earlier judgment approving the State's regularization scheme for daily wagers, which contemplated phase-wise regularization, creation of posts to absorb maximum eligible workers, and continued implementation until eligible workers were absorbed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that, although Umadevi limits regularization as a one-time measure to persons working for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts, the present respondents stood covered by the earlier inter partes judgment approving the scheme and directing phase-wise regularization. The Court rejected the contention that Umadevi overruled or nullified the earlier judgment as between the parties, emphasizing that the earlier decision had become final and binding on the university. The Court further held that the observation in Umadevi regarding loss of precedential value of contrary decisions did not absolve the university from complying with the Court's specific directions in the earlier binding judgment.

Conclusions: The respondents' right to be regularized in accordance with the approved scheme continued "till all the eligible daily-wagers are absorbed." The university's reliance on absence of sanctioned posts and on Umadevi did not defeat that continuing obligation.

Issue (ii): Validity of denying regularization to eligible daily wagers when others similarly situated were regularized; scope for interference with the High Court's directions

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the scheme-based eligibility and the binding directions requiring implementation, including phase-wise absorption and creation of additional posts. The Court also addressed unequal treatment where similarly situated persons were granted regularization.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that a set of posts had been created as a first-stage implementation and that this did not exhaust the university's obligation, since the directions required continued implementation to regularize all eligible daily wagers. The Court accepted the High Court's finding that the university adopted a discriminatory approach by granting regularization to some similarly situated daily wagers while denying it to others who were eligible under the scheme. Given the continuing enforceability of the approved scheme and the unequal treatment identified, the Court found no error warranting interference with the High Court's conclusion recognizing the respondents' entitlement to regularization.

Conclusions: The High Court correctly recognized the respondents' right to regularization under the scheme and the binding earlier judgment. The Court dismissed the appeals and clarified that the respondents' regularization "shall not be disturbed."

---