In a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India, the case of Smt. K.M. Vaghela vs. Department of Telecommunication addressed issues of employment equality and discrimination. The Court examined the treatment of two employees, including Smt. K.M. Vaghela and another worker, in the context of service regularization. Stay tuned to learn more about this significant legal decision.
Facts
- The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant on 5 April, 2018.
- The appellant, a part-time ‘water woman’, worked for only four hours a day.
- The appellant had filed a prayer to regularize her services in the Group ‘D’ post.
- Both the appellant and another lady, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, were engaged as contingency workers.
- Smt. K.M. Vaghela joined as a ‘Safai Karamchari’ in 1991.
- The appellant served in the Posts and Telegraphs Department for more than sixteen years as a part-time ‘water woman’.
- The appellant sought regularization and grant of temporary status in Group ‘D’ cadre as per the Daily Rated Casual Labour judgment.
- The circular and scheme applicable to the Department of Telecommunication did not cover the appellant’s case.
- The appellant was paid a contingency allowance based on working hours only, not entitled to benefits under the scheme/circular.
- The circular of 1992 allowed for regularization of part-time laborers as full-time, subject to working hours and duties.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement by the Supreme Court: Case between KECML and KPCL
Issue
- Central issue is whether respondents discriminated between two similarly placed employees
- The key point requiring adjudication is the alleged discrimination
- Comparing the treatment of two employees is crucial for the decision
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: Contempt Proceedings against Patanjali and Baba Ramdev
Arguments
- The appellant, who served in the Department for over 30 years as a contingency worker, claimed discrimination compared to another worker, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who was regularized despite being much junior in service length.
- Appellant approached the Court after being aggrieved by the High Court’s decision citing Uma Devi and A.S. Pillai cases as reasons for denial of relief based on service duration.
- Appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant served continuously for over 30 years as a water woman without breaks, emphasizing no specific mandate by the Tribunal to regularize Vaghela’s services.
- The Department’s decision to regularize Vaghela’s services, who joined six years after the appellant in a similar role, was highlighted as discriminatory without justification.
- The response from respondents indicated that Vaghela’s regularization was independent of the Tribunal’s direction, leading to an argument that the appellant was not discriminated against.
- It was contended that the appellant did not meet the criteria of Casual Labour or Recruitment Rules, distinguishing her from Vaghela in terms of service regularization.
- Smt. K.M. Vaghela was engaged as Water/Sweeper woman at the Superintendent of Post Offices in Kutch, Bhuj.
- Her services were confirmed in compliance with the direction given by CAT in an order dated 28 July, 2015.
- The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel.
Also Read: Compensation Assessment in Motor Accident Case: High Court Judgement Reversed by Supreme Court
Analysis
- The decision to regularize the services of Smt. K.M. Vaghela was not mandated by the CAT’s order, which only directed consideration for appointment to the post of MTS.
- Smt. K.M. Vaghela was found eligible and appointed as an MTS based on DPC’s assessment, independent of the CAT’s order.
- The appellant’s argument of discrimination is established as Smt. K.M. Vaghela was given the benefit of regularization independently by the respondent-Department.
- No indication was provided that the nature of duties or working hours of Smt. K.M. Vaghela differed from the appellant in the affidavit submitted.
- The analysis considered all submissions and evidence on record.
- Appellant entitled to claim benefits of confirmation in service after being appointed to the post of MTS.
- Circulars mandate regularisation for temporary employees working continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months.
- Defence of the Department about appellant being a contingency worker for four hours a day is unsubstantiated.
- Appellant served the Department as a water woman for over three decades continuously.
- Comparison made with another employee inducted later shows discrepancy in treatment.
Decision
- The order of regularisation will be effective from the date of Smt. K.M. Vaghela’s appointment as MTS.
- All consequential benefits will be provided to the appellant.
- Compliance with this order must be completed within three months.
- Any pending applications will be disposed of.
- The impugned orders are set aside.
- The appellant is to be treated at par with Smt. K.M. Vaghela.
- The appellant will be appointed as MTS on similar terms as Smt. K.M. Vaghela.
Case Title: USHABEN JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2024 INSC 624)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009729-009729 – 2024
