Supreme Court Orders Regularisation of ISRO Daily‑Wage Labourers — Violation of Article 14

The Supreme Court on 29 April 2026 rebuked the Union Government for failing to give permanent status to daily‑wage workers employed at a subsidiary of ISRO . The Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and struck down portions of the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012 , holding that it offered only temporary engagement contrary to earlier judicial directions. Key Developments The Central Administrative Tribunal in 2010 directed the Union to frame a scheme or ad‑hoc rules to create permanent posts for the workers. The Madras High Court upheld the CAT direction in 2011 , but the Union introduced the 2012 scheme that provided only contractual engagement. The Supreme Court declared the scheme inconsistent with the Tribunal’s directions and ordered immediate regularisation of the appellants. Permanent status is to be granted retroactively from 9 September 2010 , with implementation to begin within four weeks of the judgment. Important Facts The appellants, known as "gang labourers," were engaged between 1991 and 1997 at ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre in Mahendragiri, performing loading, unloading and material‑shifting tasks. Many served for over two decades. The Tribunal’s deadline for framing a regularisation scheme was 9 September 2010 . The 2012 scheme, however, failed to create permanent posts, prompting the present challenge. UPSC Relevance The judgment underscores the constitutional guarantee of Article 14 , emphasizing that state actions must be non‑arbitrary and must ensure fairness in public employment. It illustrates the principle of the State as a “model employer”, a concept frequently examined in GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. The case also highlights the role of the regularisation of contractual workers, a recurring theme in discussions on labour welfare and administrative reforms. Way Forward The Union must create the requisite permanent posts and integrate the workers into the regular cadre, complying with the four‑week deadline. Administrative agencies should ensure that any scheme framed after a judicial direction fully embodies the spirit of that direction, avoiding ad‑hoc or diluted versions. Future litigation may focus on monitoring compliance and ensuring that similar “temporary” schemes for other central‑government employees are not introduced without proper regularisation. By reinforcing the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness, the judgment sets a precedent for how the government must treat contract workers in strategic sectors, a point of relevance for aspirants preparing for questions on governance, labour law, and constitutional law.