Ushaben Joshi vs. Union of India [August 02, 2024]
Background of the Case
Ushaben Joshi was employed in the Postal Department as a cleaner in 1986.
She worked in the department for many years (over 16 years) and performed duties similar to other employees.
During her tenure, she sought regularization of her services, meaning she wanted her temporary or casual employment to be made permanent, based on her long service.
Her request was rejected by the postal authorities.
She then approached:
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – her plea was dismissed.
High Court – similarly, the court rejected her claim.
Feeling aggrieved, she moved to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issue
The main legal question was:
Whether the Postal Department could treat two similarly situated employees differently.
Specifically, another employee, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who joined in 1991 and performed the same duties, was regularized, but Ushaben Joshi, who had joined earlier (1986), was not.
Ushaben argued that this discrimination violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal treatment for equals.
So, the issue was fundamentally about equality and non-discrimination in public employment.
Arguments
For Ushaben Joshi:
She had worked longer than her colleague and performed identical duties.
There was no valid reason to deny her regularization while granting it to another employee.
Denying her claim was unfair and arbitrary, violating Article 14.
For the Union of India / Postal Department:
They might argue that policies or administrative discretion allowed them to regularize certain employees at different times.
They could claim differences in service records, qualifications, or other factors justified the decision.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ushaben Joshi.
Key points from the judgment:
Principle of Equality:
Employees performing the same duties and in similar circumstances must be treated equally.
The Court emphasized that arbitrary discrimination cannot be justified, especially when there is no substantial reason for differentiating between employees.
Directives to the Department:
Ushaben Joshi’s service must be regularized as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS).
She should receive the same benefits, salary, and service conditions as her counterpart, Smt. K.M. Vaghela.
Reinforcement of Article 14:
The judgment reinforced the constitutional mandate that similarly situated persons should not be treated differently in public employment.
Significance of the Judgment
This case strengthens employees’ rights against arbitrary treatment in government jobs.
It sets a precedent that seniority and equality of service must be recognized when deciding regularization or promotions.
Government departments must ensure fairness and consistency in regularization policies.
Conclusion
Ushaben Joshi worked for many years and was denied regularization unjustly.
The Supreme Court recognized her right to equal treatment and ordered her regularization on par with her colleague.
This case is now a reference point for cases of discrimination in public employment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments