'State Must Be Model Employer' : Supreme Court Criticises Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers Despite Earlier Directions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 29) criticised the Union Government for failing to implement the regularisation of daily wage workers in an ISRO subsidiary, despite earlier directions requiring it to frame a scheme or issue ad hoc rules within six months by creating the necessary posts to absorb them on a permanent basis.

The Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and quashed portions of the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012”, observing that the scheme merely provided temporary engagement instead of permanent status as mandated earlier.

The Court held that once judicial directions attain finality, the authorities cannot dilute their substance by framing schemes that fall short of compliance. It emphasised that the obligation of the State to act as a model employer flows directly from Article 14 of the Constitution

“…we must express our serious disapproval of the manner in which the respondents (Union of India) have dealt with the present case… The present case exemplifies how a litigant, often placed at the margins of the system, is compelled to traverse a prolonged and arduous legal journey merely to secure what is justly due. In the present case, the directions issued by the Tribunal, which attained finality upon dismissal of the challenge by this Court, ought to have been implemented in their true spirit. Instead, the respondents adopted a course that effectively diluted the substance of those directions, prolonging the dispute for years.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The Court emphasized that “the State, as a model employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its workforce, those who have contributed, however indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount importance, with arbitrariness or indifference.”

“Denying them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service status, while reaping the benefits of their labour, strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment.”, the court added.

The Court emphasised that the contributions of the labourers, who helped India's space program, must not be ignored.

"In celebrating the glory of our scientific fraternity, we must not overlook the invisible yet indispensable contributions of every individual who formed part of that larger enterprise. The success of a rocket or a satellite mission is not the sole outcome of high-level design and propulsion engineering. It is equally the result of a seamless chain of support, from the transportation of materials to the maintenance of facilities and the myriad ancillary tasks that ensure operational efficiency. The last man standing in this chain, often belonging to Group-C or Group-D services, performs duties that may appear sporadic or peripheral in isolation. However, without their dedicated support, the very materials and logistics essential for scientific advancement would falter in reaching the laboratories and assembly halls of our scientists.

To disregard or discriminate against such individuals in matters of service recognition would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond."

Background

The appellants were daily-wage “gang labourers” engaged between 1991 and 1997 at ISRO's Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre in Mahendragiri, performing tasks such as loading, unloading, and shifting materials. Many had rendered over two decades of service.

In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Union to frame a scheme or ad hoc rules by creating posts for their permanent absorption. This direction was upheld by the Madras High Court in 2011 and later by the Supreme Court, attaining finality.

However, instead of creating permanent posts, the Union introduced the 2012 scheme, which only provided for temporary engagement without regularisation, an approach the Court found contrary to its earlier directions.

The 2012 scheme was challenged by the Appellants before the CAT, which was unsuccessful, leading to a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court by the aggrieved employees.

Decision

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath held that the High Court erred in denying relief to the appellants by reopening the matter on merits and relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to deny regularisation, when its inquiry ought to have been confined to examining whether the tribunal's directions, particularly regarding the framing of the 2012 scheme, had been duly complied with.

“The scope of consideration in the subsequent proceedings was, therefore, confined to examining compliance with those directions. It was wholly impermissible for the High Court to reopen the issue on merits or to revisit the question of regularisation at that stage.”, the court said.

“The obligation of the State to act as a model employer is not a mere exhortation but flows directly from the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and mandates fairness, non-discrimination, and reasoned decision-making in all State actions.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned decision and the 2012 scheme to the extent it is inconsistent with the directions issued by the Tribunal for engagement of the Appellants on a permanent basis.

The Court also directed the regularisation of the services of the appellants and the grant of permanent status to them, with effect from 9th September, 2010, being the outer limit fixed by the Tribunal for framing the scheme, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

Cause Title: R. IYYAPPAN & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. P Rohit Ram, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Jain, Adv. Ms. Mishra Divya Santosh, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR