SC Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Staff
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
Application of Umadevi Precedent: BEFORE, departments used the 2006 Umadevi ruling as a blanket excuse to deny regularisation to any temporary worker. NOW, the SC clarified that Umadevi targets illegal backdoor entries, not irregular employees who have rendered long, unblemished service in essential roles.
- ▶
Constitutional Equality in Employment: BEFORE, the arbitrary classification of perennial workers as temporary often went unchecked. NOW, such misclassification is explicitly recognized as a violation of Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment).
- ▶
Contractual Exploitation: BEFORE, public institutions could easily outsource jobs or terminate ad-hoc staff to evade permanent employment obligations. NOW, the Court has condemned this practice, mandating that the state cannot use artificial contractual labels to exploit workers performing continuous, necessary functions.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
With Reference ToWith reference to the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in 'Jaggo v. Union of India', consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court ruled that all temporary workers in the private gig economy must be regularised within five years. 2. The Court held that misclassifying employees performing essential and recurring work as temporary violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. The judgment clarified that the 2006 Umadevi precedent cannot be used as a blanket excuse to deny regularisation to long-serving irregular employees. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?