Supreme Court on Regularisation of Ad-Hoc High Court Employees: Discriminatory Treatment Held Unconstitutional.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that denial of regularisation to certain ad-hoc employees of the Allahabad High Court, while similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel were regularised, amounted to hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Invoking Article 142, the Court directed reinstatement and regularisation of the appellants, holding that artificial distinctions based on the wording of appointment orders could not justify unequal treatment.

Background:

• The appellants were appointed between 2004–2005 as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks (Class III posts) in the Allahabad High Court.

• Appointments were made by the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976.

• Several similarly appointed employees were later regularised and promoted pursuant to a Division Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 and a Committee report dated 31.05.2012.

• The appellants, however, were denied regularisation on the ground that their appointments were “ad-hoc” and that no rule existed for regularisation.

• Their writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeals.

Issues for Consideration

• Whether differential treatment between similarly appointed employees was constitutionally valid.

• Whether denial of regularisation to the appellants was arbitrary and discriminatory.

• Whether the Supreme Court could grant final relief by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.

Court’s Observations:

• All categories of employees (regularised and non-regularised) were appointed through the same channel, i.e., by the Chief Justice exercising powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules.

• The distinction drawn by the Committee between employees based on labels such as “ad-hoc” or absence of examination clauses was held to be arbitrary and superficial.

• Once similarly placed employees were regularised, denial of the same benefit to the appellants lacked reasonable classification or intelligible differentia.

• High Courts, as constitutional institutions, must act as model employers and adhere to principles of equality and non-arbitrariness.

• Subsequent rule amendments or declaration of the post as a “dead cadre” could not be used to deny parity when discrimination originated earlier.

• Given prolonged service, clear discrimination, and the passage of time, remanding the matter would cause grave injustice.

Decision & Directions

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed:

• Reinstatement of the appellants on their respective posts.

• Regularisation of their services after one year from their original dates of appointment.

• Grant of all consequential benefits (seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments, retiral benefits), except back wages for the period not worked.

• Compliance to be completed within 8 weeks from the date of judgment.

The Court clarified that the judgment is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not operate as a precedent.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Article 14, 16, 21 & 142, Constitution of India

• Article 229, Constitution of India

• Rules 8(a)(i), 41, 45, Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976

• U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules, 1979 (contextual discussion)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1477

Case: Ratnank Mishra & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General

(with Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Dharmendra Singh Rathore v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025

Civil Appeal Nos.: 428–431 of 2022