Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Allahabad High Court Employees Appointed by Chief Justice; Differential Treatment Held Arbitrary and Unconstitutional

Case Name: Ratnank Mishra & Others v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1477
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 December 2025
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, J.; Vijay Bishnoi, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the denial of regularization to the appellants, despite similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel having been regularized, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, and that mere differences in stipulations contained in appointment letters could not justify differential treatment when the channel and nature of appointment were identical.

Summary: The appellants were appointed as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks in the Allahabad High Court under orders of the Chief Justice exercising powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of the 1976 Rules, without a regular recruitment process. A Committee constituted pursuant to earlier Division Bench directions recommended regularization for some employees while rejecting the appellants’ claims on the basis that their appointments were ad hoc and fell beyond the cut-off under the U.P. Regularization Rules, 1979. While several similarly appointed employees were regularized and even promoted, the appellants were denied parity and later discontinued from service. The Supreme Court examined the Committee’s categorization, the identical channel of appointment for all categories, and the absence of any rational or intelligible differentia, and concluded that the distinction drawn was superficial and discriminatory, undermining the principles of equality and fairness that High Courts, as constitutional institutions, are duty-bound to uphold.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, directed reinstatement of the appellants, ordered their regularization after one year from their respective dates of appointment, and granted all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, and retiral benefits, excluding back wages for the period not worked, with compliance directed within eight weeks, clarifying that the directions were confined to the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated as precedent.