Deals & Matter

Raman Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India

Environmental Law

Supreme Court

Raman Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

The case of Raman Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India deals with the regularization of Group ‘D’ employees in the Income Tax Department. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the non regularization of certain employees, despite eligibility and prolonged service, was justified in light of constitutional principles and prior precedents.

At the heart of the matter was whether denial of regularization to a subset of employees, when others similarly placed were regularized, amounted to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeal arose from a dismissed contempt petition by the Patna High Court, which held that there was no contempt since posts were not available. The Supreme Court overruled this view and granted relief to the appellants.

Issue Before the Court

Whether the Union of India violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 by regularizing only some eligible employees under the Uma devi judgment’s one-time window, while denying regularization to others who were equally placed and had completed over ten years of service.
Additionally, whether the High Court was correct in dismissing a contempt petition, based solely on an affidavit citing lack of vacancies, without examining the discriminatory application of regularization policy.

Background Facts

  • The dispute concerns 65 Group ‘D’ employees working with the Income Tax Department.
  • Erected Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which prohibited “backdoor entries” into public service but allowed one-time regularization for those with more than 10 years of service, the Income Tax Department initiated a process to identify eligible workers.
  • The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, in a report dated 14 February 2013, confirmed that 65 employees were entitled to regularization.
  • However, the Department only regularized 35 out of the 65, citing availability of posts.
  • The remaining 30 were left out, and 16 of them, including Raman Kumar, filed a contempt petition before the Patna High Court, asserting that the department’s selective regularization violated the Supreme Court’s directions in Uma devi.

High Court Proceedings

  • The High Court dismissed the contempt petition on 9 December 2019, accepting the government’s claim (via affidavit) that no posts were available and that Group ‘D’ positions had been abolished.
  • The High Court concluded that there was no willful disobedience of court orders and therefore no contempt was made out.
  • Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 7898/2020).

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

“We’ll need a national AI governance framework

The amendments come in response to the

View More
Blogs
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

The insurance sector is the unsung hero of financial

Insurance regulatory

In India, no business in the insurance

View More

Appellants’ Arguments

Represented by senior advocates, the appellants argued:

  • They had completed more than 10 years of continuous service, fulfilling the criteria laid out in the criteria laid out ih the Uma devi judgement.
  • The Income Tax Department’s own report confirmed that 65 employees deserved regularization.
  • Selective regularization of 35 employees and denial to others without valid distinction was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality).
  • The claim of non-availability of posts was a post-hoc excuse and lacked credibility—especially since other employees were regularized under the same policy window.
  • The High Court erred in dismissing the contempt petition without properly analyzing the discriminatory nature of the action.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, argued:

  • No posts were available for further regularization after the initial 35 were confirmed.
  • Later, Group ‘D’ posts were abolished, eliminating the possibility of regularizing the remaining 30 employees.
  • The government’s action did not violate any binding legal direction and therefore did not amount to contempt.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s defense and made key observations:

  • Completion of 10+ years of service was an undisputed fact for all the appellants.
  • The Chief Commissioner’s report clearly identified 65 employees as eligible for regularization not just the 35 who were eventually regularized.
  • The exclusion of 30 employees, without any intelligible differentia, violated Article 14 and principles of non-discrimination in public employment.
  • In line with its prior ruling in Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India (2018), the Court emphasized that unequal treatment among similarly situated employees cannot be permitted.
  • The High Court had wrongly dismissed the contempt petition without considering the substance of the discrimination involved.

Judgment and Final Orders

The Supreme Court issued a clear and favourable ruling for the appellants:

  • Appeal Allowed.
  • The services of the appellants were directed to be regularized from the same date as the 35 other employees.
  • The appellants were also held entitled to:
  1. Back wages
  2. Consequential service benefits
  • The Union of India was directed to process and pay all entitlements within six months from the date of the judgment (i.e., by 3 January 2024).
  • No costs were imposed; pending applications were disposed of.

Legal Significance

Equality in Public Employment

Government cannot pick and choose among similarly placed employees for regularization. Doing so is a clear breach of Article 14.

Scope of Contempt

When a departmental report recognizes entitlement to regularization, eligible employees have a reasonable expectation of fairness.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The judgment clarifies that the High Court must look beyond technical compliance (e.g., filing an affidavit) and examine whether real constitutional violations have occurred.

Follow-through on Uma devi

The Court continues to apply the one-time window from Uma devi strictly but fairly, ensuring it is not selectively or unjustly applied.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top