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

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and ensures compliance with its provisions (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>29 April 2026</strong> rebuked the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union Government — the central executive authority of India responsible for implementing policies and laws (GS2: Polity)">Union Government</span> for failing to give permanent status to daily‑wage workers employed at a subsidiary of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) — India's premier space agency, responsible for satellite launches and space research (GS3: Economy, GS4: Ethics)">ISRO</span>. The Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and struck down portions of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="‘Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012’ — a scheme intended to engage daily‑wage workers on a temporary basis, later struck down for not providing permanent status (GS2: Polity)">Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012</span>, holding that it offered only temporary engagement contrary to earlier judicial directions.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) — a specialized tribunal that adjudicates service matters of central government employees (GS2: Polity)">Central Administrative Tribunal</span> in <strong>2010</strong> directed the Union to frame a scheme or ad‑hoc rules to create permanent posts for the workers.</li> <li>The Madras High Court upheld the CAT direction in <strong>2011</strong>, but the Union introduced the 2012 scheme that provided only contractual engagement.</li> <li>The Supreme Court declared the scheme inconsistent with the Tribunal’s directions and ordered immediate regularisation of the appellants.</li> <li>Permanent status is to be granted retroactively from <strong>9 September 2010</strong>, with implementation to begin within four weeks of the judgment.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The appellants, known as "gang labourers," were engaged between <strong>1991 and 1997</strong> 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 <strong>9 September 2010</strong>. The 2012 scheme, however, failed to create permanent posts, prompting the present challenge.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The judgment underscores the constitutional guarantee of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Constitution — guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrary state action (GS2: Polity)">Article 14</span>, 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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="regularisation — conversion of temporary or contractual employment into permanent posts, ensuring job security and statutory benefits (GS2: Polity, GS4: Ethics)">regularisation</span> of contractual workers, a recurring theme in discussions on labour welfare and administrative reforms.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>The Union must create the requisite permanent posts and integrate the workers into the regular cadre, complying with the four‑week deadline.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>Future litigation may focus on monitoring compliance and ensuring that similar “temporary” schemes for other central‑government employees are not introduced without proper regularisation.</li> </ul> <p>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.</p>