In Brief
A casual worker engaged by a municipality in 1991 and appointed as a permanent clerk in 1996 was denied regularisation despite similarly situated colleagues being regularised and prior court orders directing his absorption. The High Court dismissed his appeals on grounds of delay. The Supreme Court held that this constituted discriminatory violation of equality rights under Articles 14 and 16. As Umadevi's principle against casual regularisation did not apply when court orders existed for absorption and other employees had been similarly regularised, the Court allowed the appeal, entitling the worker to back wages and benefits from 1991 with 10% interest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.