In a powerful and progressive ruling, the Supreme Court of India has transformed the landscape of labor and service law through its recent judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India. The decision underscores the Court’s role as a protector of the rights of low-wage and contract-based government workers, especially those engaged in precarious Group C and D roles across departments.
Both in tone and content, the judgment is sharply critical of systemic exploitation and reflects the Court’s long-standing tradition of being the guardian of the oppressed.
CASE BACKGROUND: ABRUPT TERMINATION AFTER TRIBUNAL DENIAL
The appellants in Jaggo were engaged as cleaners and gardeners at the Central Water Commission (CWC) in New Delhi. When they approached the tribunal seeking regularisation, their plea was rejected based on two grounds:
- Lack of “regular vacancies”
- Failure to meet the 240-days per year requirement for full-time employment
Within ten days of this dismissal, the workers were abruptly terminated without any show-cause notice, leading them to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. However, the High Court also denied relief, citing the part-time nature of employment, absence of sanctioned posts, lack of educational qualifications, and outsourcing of services.
Undeterred, the workers filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, leading to the historic judgment.
KEY LEGAL GROUNDS AND SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS
CONTINUOUS AND SUBSTANTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Court emphasized the sustained contribution of the appellants and their integral role in the CWC’s operations.
“The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.” – Para 10, Jaggo
The judgment critiques the systematic denial of regularization by employing workers for 239 days annually—just short of the 240-day mark—to avoid legal obligations.
NATURE OF DUTIES: ESSENTIAL AND INTEGRAL
In a significant departure from traditional interpretations, the Court recognized that the duties performed by Group C and D employees are indispensable to public institutions.
The Court rejected the argument that roles such as cleaning and gardening are dispensable, noting:
“The nature of duties performed by the appellants—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites.” – Para 17, Jaggo
This sets a strong precedent, validating the dignity and importance of ancillary roles.
ABSENCE OF PERFORMANCE ISSUES
The Court acknowledged the clean service records of the appellants, highlighting that performance-based metrics were in their favour.
The State’s hiring and firing practices, especially in temporary and contract roles, were called out as mirroring exploitative corporate models. Workers were underpaid and overworked, without enjoying the benefits accorded to regular employees.
UMA DEVI GUIDELINES: MISUSED BY STATE AUTHORITIES
The State cited Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) to oppose regularization. However, the Court clarified that the Uma Devi judgment was never intended to penalize long-serving workers who fulfill essential duties.
“It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.” – Para 20, Jaggo
“Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” – Para 26, Jaggo
DISCRIMINATION IN REGULARISATION: ARTICLE 14 AND 16 VIOLATIONS
The judgment highlighted that unequal treatment among similarly situated employees—where some are regularized while others are not—is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.
This selective and opaque approach, marred by corruption, red tape, and favouritism, has historically denied justice to deserving workers.
IRRELEVANCE OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The Court dismissed the State’s objection based on lack of educational qualifications, especially when such criteria were never central to the workers’ original appointment or job duties.
“..The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades.” – Para 17, Jaggo
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS: CORNERSTONE OF THE JUDGMENT
At its heart, Jaggo reaffirms the Constitutional mandate of fairness, equity, and justice in public employment. The judgment strongly condemns exploitative employment practices and recognizes the real-life implications of job insecurity for the country’s most vulnerable workers.
A SYSTEMIC CRITIQUE OF EXPLOITATION
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
The Court noted the increasing resemblance of state employment practices to gig economy models, arguing that the government must set a higher standard of employment stability and not mirror private corporations.
MULTI-FACETED EXPLOITATION UNMASKED
- Arbitrary Terminations: Workers are often terminated without due process, as observed in Para 14 of Jaggo.
- Lack of Career Progression: Denied training and upskilling, contract workers are kept stagnant.
- Outsourcing as Evasion: Government entities use outsourcing as a shield to avoid regularization, turning essential services into casualized labor markets.
CONCLUSION
The Jaggo judgment has opened floodgates for service-related writ petitions in High Courts across the country. While courts remain mindful of not encroaching upon executive powers of appointment, this decision is a watershed moment in labour law—grounded in empathy, realism, and constitutional values.
It offers robust protection against misuse of the Uma Devi judgment, and most importantly, restores dignity to thousands of temporary and contractual workers across India.
