PREM RAM versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTIARAKHAND PEY JAL&  NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUNAND ORS.
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 192, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[201,&J? S.C.R.192 
A 
P.~EMRAM 
v. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTIARAKHAND PEY JAL& 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUNAND ORS. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. 5. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
c 
Labour Laws: 
Regularization - Claim for- By daily- wager- On the 
ground that the daily-wagers junior to him had been 
regularized - Plea of the employer that the workmen 
0 regularized being work-charged employees, their case was 
distinct from daily-wager - Held: There is no difference 
between the daily-wagers and the work-charged employees 
because, in essence, the nature of theirengagement remains 
the same - Hence both the categories of employees have to 
E be treated on the same footing- Since the employees (work-
charged) were junior to the claimant-employee, regularization 
of the claimant-employee is directed on the analogy of his 
juniors w.e.f. the date, his juniors were regularized and for 
release of all his retiral benefits - However, the direction for 
F regularization would not entitle the claimant-employee to 
claim arrears of salary based on such regularization. 
I• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. If engagement in a work-charged 
G establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the 
absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or 
the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a 
work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no 
H difference betWeen a daily-wager on the one hand and 
192
PREM RAM v. M. D., UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & 
193 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN 
work-charged employees on the other. No distinction A 
can resultantly be made between these two categories 
of employees, for in essence, the nature of their 
engagement remains the same except that in the case 
of work-charged employ~es, the wages/emoluments 
appear to be borne from out of the allocation for the B 
project in which they are employed while in the other 
case there is no such specific allocation of funds. The 
classification of work- charged and other employees 
remains wholly unsatisfactory at least for the purposes 
of the present case leaving no option for the Court but C 
to treat the case of the daily~wagers and work-charge 
employees on the same footi,ng when it comes to 
granting regularization to them. [Para 8) [198-F-H; 199-
A-B] 
D 
2. The persons who were junior to the appellant, 
having been engaged much later than him, steal a march 
over him in terms of regularization in service while the 
appellant remained embroiled in litigation over what was 
eventually found to be an illegal termination of his E 
service. Though the appellant has already 
superannuated, in view of the facts that the appellant 
had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had 
by the time the decision of th is-Court in Umadevi's (3) 
F 
case pronounced, already completed more than 1 O 
years service; that Government had formulated rules for 
regularization of such daily-wagers; that neither the
State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the 
idea of regularization of those who have served for over G 
a decade, there is no impediment in directing 
regularization of the service of the appellant on the 
analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors 
were regularized and for the release Qf all retiral benefits 
in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in H
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A continuous service till the date of his superannuation. 
However, this direction will not entme the appellant to 
claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on 
such regularization. [Para 9) [199-C-H] 
B 
Secretary, State of Kamataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) 
2006 (3) SCR 953: (2006) 4 SCC 1 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
C 2006 (3) SCR 953 
referred to. 
Para 5 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4474 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2011 of the 
o High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 
128of2011. 
Deeptakirti Verma, Neha Sharma for the Appellant. 
Rachana Srivasatava, Utkarsh Sharma for the 
E Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 30th June, 
2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital 
whereby Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 filed by the appellant 
has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned 
G Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition 324(MS) of 2004 
affirmed. 
3. The appellant, it appears, was appointed as a daily-
wager in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam 
H sometime in the year 1988. Nine years later his services were 
terminated in February 1997. The termination, when assailed
PREM RAM v. M. D., UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL& 
195 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADl'.1N [T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
by the appellant before the Labour Court, was set aside with a A 
direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant with 50% 
back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition filed by 
the respondent-Jal Nigam who is the successor-in interest of 
the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal Nigam against the award 
made by the Labour Court succeeded only in part and to the B 
extent that the award of back wages was deleted from the 
award by the Labour Court. It is common ground that pursuant 
to the award, the appellant was allowed to rejoin as a daily-
wager and to serve the respondent-Jal Nigam till the date of 
his superannuation upon completion of 60 years of age. 
C 
/ 
4. In the year 2008, the appellant filed Writ Petition 
No.1116 of 2008 before the High Court for a mandamus 
directing respondents to regularise his services w.e.f. 1st July, 
2003 on the post of Jeep Driver and to release consequential D 
benefits in his favour including arrears due to him.· The 
appellant's case in the writ petition was that other daily-wagers 
who were junior to him and appointed after the year 1988 having 
been regularized in service, the appellant could not merely 
because of an illegal order of termination of his services be E 
deprived of that benefit. The appellant contended that the 
termination order having been set aside by the Labour Court 
which order was affirmed by the High
Court with continuity of 
his service, there was no reason for.denial of benefits that would 
F 
have flowed to him but for the order of termination especially 
when such benefits were extended to other similarly situate 
contemporaries and juniors of th~appellant. · 
5. The writ petition coming before the Single Judge 
Bench of the High Court at Uttarakhand was dismissed by an G 
order dated 23rc1 May, 2011 on the authority of the decision of 
this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. 
Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. The High Court at the same 
·time allowed the appellant to 111ove a representation before H
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A the concerned authorities in the light of paragraph 53 of the 
decision in Umadevi (3) case (supra). The High Court 
observed that if there is a scheme of regularization the claim 
of the appellant should also be considered in accordance 
therewith. 
B 
6. Dissatisfied with the above order, the appellant 
preferred Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 which, as noticed 
earlier, has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. The High Court held that since there was no scheme for 
C regularization of daily-wagers and those named by the 
appellant in the writ petition had been regularized by the Uttar 
Pradesh Jal Nigam at a time when Uttarakhand Pey Jal and 
Nirman Nigam was not in existence, nothing further could be 
done in the matter nor any relief granted to the appellant. The 
D present appeal assails the correctness of the said two 
judgments and orders of the High Court. 
7. When the matter came up for hearing before this 
Court on 81h July, 2013, learned counsel for the respondent-
E Corporation was granted time to take instructions whether any 
scheme within the contemplation of para 53 of Umadevi (3) 
case (supra) had been formulated by the respondent-
Corporation and in case no such scheme has been formulated, 
whether the Corporation is willing to formulate one. The matter 
F again came up for hearing on 18th November, 2013. It was 
argued by Ms. Rachana Srivastava, counsel appearing for the
respondent-Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam that while 
the Nigam had passed a resolution adopting the scheme 
formulated by the State Government in terms of the directions 
G of this Court in Umadevi (3) case (supra), the Government's 
approval for such an adoption had not so far been received. 
She prayed for and was granted time to place on record a 
copy of the Government scheme adopted by the Nigam as 
H also the resolution under which the same was adopted 
•
PREM RAM v. M. D., UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL& 
197 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN [T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
besides, a copy of the approval, if any, granted by the A 
Government to such adoption. On 27111 October, 2014, when 
the matter came-up once again for hearing, our attention was 
drawn to additional documents filed by the appellant from which 
it appeared that the persons who figured at serials no. 78 to 
82 at page 12 of the said additional documents had been B 
regularized w.e.f. 1st July, 2003, although their entry into service 
was shown to be 5th of June, 1989 onwards. It was on that 
basis argued that persons junior to the appellant having been 
regularized in service, whereas the appellant could not have 
been deprived of a similar benefit simply because his services C 
were illegally terminated. On behalf of the respondent-Jal 
Nigam it was, on the other hand, argued that there was a 
difference between cases of persons appearing at serial 
nos. 78 to 82 and that of the appellant inasmuch as the former D 
were work-charged employees while the appellant was 
appointed as a daily-wager. At the request of learned counsel 
for the respondent-Nigam the matter was adjourned by four 
weeks to enable the Nigam to file an additional affidavit as to 
whether regularization had been ordered after undertaking any E 
screening/selection process and if so, on what terms and 
conditions. 
8. From the affidavit filed, in compliance with the 
directions issued by this Court, it appears that the
Government F 
of Uttarakhand had framed Regularization Rules 2011 for 
regularization of daily-wagers and temporary employees who 
had been appointed on or before 1st November, 2011 and had 
completed 10 years of continuous service by tha~. date. The 
said Rules were then adopted by the.Board of respondent-Jal G 
Nigam in terms of resolution passed in its 121h Meeting and 
approval of the State Government for implementation of the 
said Rules in the Nigam sought under Managing Director's 
letter dated 3rc1 March, 2012 addressed to the Principal 
Secretary, Peyjal Nigam, Government of Uttarakhand. While H
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A the approval of the Government was still awaited, the 
Government appears to have framed fresh Regularisation 
Rules in supersession of the Rules of 2011. These Rules are 
said to be under challenge before the High Court of 
Uttarakhand at Nanital in which the High Court appears to have 
B passed certain interim orders also. From the affidavits it is 
further evident that five persons named by the appellant 
appearing at serials no. 78 to 82 of the list of juniors have been 
regularized in service. It is not in dispute that all these persons 
were appointed· on dates subsequent to the date of 
C appointment of the appellant. The respondent, however, has 
attempted to justify the regularization of juniors mentioned 
above on the ground that they had been appointed in work-
charge establishment whereas the appellant herein was a 
0 daily-wager. We asked learned counsel for the respondent 
as to whether daily-wagers on the basis of their seniority or 
otherwise were brought on to the work-charged establishment 
and if there was no such practice or procedure followed, what 
was the basis on which the department would decide whether 
E the person has to be engaged on a work-charged 
establishment or as a daily-wager. We must regretfully say that 
we did not get a satisfactory answer to that question nor does 
any of the several affidavits filed in these proceedings by the 
respondent-Jal Nigam point out a qualitative difference 
F
between daily-wager on the one hand and a temporary 
engagement on work-charged establishment on the other. If 
engagement in a work-charged establishment rest _on a 
criterion, no better than the absolute discretion of the authority 
engaging them or the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy 
G or neecf in a work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed 
no difference between a daily-wager on the one hand and work-
charged employees on the other. No distinction can resultantly 
be made between these two categories of employees for in 
essence, the nature of their engagement remains the same 
H except that in the case of work-charged employees, the wages/
PREM RAM v. M. 0., UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL& 
199 
NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN [T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
emoluments appear to be borne from out of the allocation for A 
the project in which they are employed while in the other case 
there is no such specific allocation of funds. The classification 
of work- charged and other employees to say the least remains 
wholly unsatisfactory at least for the purposes of the case in 
hand leaving no option for us but to treat the case of the daily-
B 
wagers and work-charge employees on the same footing when 
it comes to granting regularization to them. 
-·. 
9. If that be so, there is no denying the fact that the 
persons who were junior to the appellant, having been engaged C 
much later than him, steal a march over him in terms of 
regularization in service while the appellant remained 
embroiled in litigation over what was eventually found to be an 
illegal termination of his service. It is true that the appellant 
has already superannuated. That does not, however, make any D 
difference. What is important is that the appellant had been 
appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had by the time the 
decision of this Court in Umadevi's (3) case (supra) 
pronounced, already completed more than 10 years service. 
Government has formulated rules for regularization of such E 
daily-wagers, no matter the same are the subject matter of a 
challenge before the High Court. What is noteworthy is that 
neither the State Government nor the Jal Nigam has
resented 
the idea of regularization of those who have served for over a F 
decade. The rules providing for regularization are a sufficient 
enough indication of that fact. We do not, therefore, see any 
impediment in directing regularization of the service of the 
appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date 
his juniors were regularized and for the release· of all retiral G 
benefits in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in 
continuous service till the date of his superannuat.!_o!:l· We make 
it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim 
any amount towards arrears of salary based on such 
regularization. 
· - -
H

200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
10. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby 
B 
allowed. The orders passed by the High Court are set aside 
and the writ petition filed by the appellant disposed of in terms 
of the directions contained hereinabove. The parties are 
directed to bear their own costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed. 
... v ..... 
.. • u ....