- within Employment and HR, Insurance and Environment topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
NOTABLE JUDGMENTS MAY 2026
1. Transparent public recruitment remains the constitutional norm; regularization cannot be a substitute for it, but limited protection may be granted to long-serving irregular appointees in deserving cases.
Case Title: Madan Singh v. The State of Haryana (click here)
Case Number: 2026 INSC 379
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 16.04.2026
FACTS:
The Supreme Court was examining the correctness of the Punjab & Haryana High Court's 2018 judgment that had quashed the Haryana Government's 2014 notifications seeking regularization of contractual, ad hoc, and daily-wage employees in Group 'B', 'C', and 'D' posts, on the ground that they were violative of the principles laid down in Umadevi (2006).
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court partly upheld and partly struck down the Haryana Government's 2014 notifications. The Court held that the notifications were valid as they sought to regularize eligible ad hoc employees who had worked for three years against sanctioned posts and possessed prescribed qualifications. However, it declared the notifications dated 07.07.2014 arbitrary and illegal, as they attempted to regularize employees appointed without public advertisement or interview, including those who would complete ten years by a future cut-off date.
While striking down the July 2014 notifications, the Court, invoking Article 142, granted equitable relief by directing that employees who had already been regularized and were continuing in service shall not be disturbed, though they will be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post. The judgment reinforces that regularization cannot substitute transparent recruitment but provides limited protection to long-serving irregular appointees in deserving cases.
2. No oral enquiry and non-examination of witnesses vitiates disciplinary proceedings when charges are denied, even if based on documentary evidence.
Case Title: Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative (click here)
Case Number: 2026 INSC 305
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 01.04.2026
FACTS:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order and recovery of Rs. 9,53,433 passed against an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited. The appellant, who was posted as In-charge of a paddy procurement center, was charged with shortage of paddy and embezzlement. The charges were denied by him, yet the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry without examining any witness or holding an oral enquiry.
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court held that once the charges are denied, it is mandatory for the employer to hold a proper oral enquiry wherein witnesses must be examined in the presence of the charged employee and offered for cross-examination. Relying upon its earlier decisions in Sur Enamel, Kharak Singh, and Chamoli District Co-operative Bank, the Court clarified that a departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint in a civil suit, and an evasive reply cannot be treated as an admission of guilt. Unless the charges are expressly admitted, the burden remains on the employer to prove them through evidence.
The Court ruled that the enquiry stood vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure prescribed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 and Service Rules, 1980. Accordingly, the order of dismissal and recovery was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the employer to hold a de novo enquiry within six months, with appropriate directions regarding reinstatement and suspension allowance.
3. Mere assertions or unverified local recommendations are insufficient for claiming regularization in government service. Verifiable official records proving lawful engagement remain essential, especially when recruitment of casual labour was banned.
Case Title: Subhash v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (click here)
Case Number: O.A 1077/2013
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench
Decided On: 07.04.2026
FACTS:
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, dismissed the Original Application filed by Subhash seeking declaration as full-time casual labourer, grant of temporary status, and regularization in BSNL with retrospective effect. The applicant claimed that he was engaged as a part-time casual labourer in April 1996 at the Angarh Telephone Exchange, Mirzapur, and had worked full-time duties (more than 8 hours a day) continuously till September 2013. He relied upon various Department of Telecom and BSNL circulars issued between 1989 and 2006 for conversion of part-time casual labourers to full-time and for regularization. He also alleged oral termination of his services on 20.09.2013 without notice. BSNL contested the claim, stating that there was a complete ban on fresh engagement of casual labourers since 30.03.1985. A three-member committee examined the records and found no evidence of the applicant's appointment, engagement letter, payment particulars, acquaintance rolls, or muster rolls in the departmental records. The respondents further submitted that the alleged recommendation by the local SDE was not approved by competent authority and appeared fabricated.
JUDGMENT:
The Tribunal held that the respondents had duly considered the applicant's representation and rejected it vide a reasoned order after proper verification. In the absence of any appointment letter or acceptable proof of lawful engagement by a competent authority, and in view of the ban on casual recruitment since 1985, no direction for regularization or grant of temporary status could be issued. The Original Application was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Mere assertions or unverified local recommendations are insufficient for claiming regularization in government service. Verifiable official records proving lawful engagement remain essential, especially when recruitment of casual labour was banned.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]