Supreme Court on Regularisation of Government Employees: Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. Jharkhand

1 August 2018 | Legal developments updated 1 November 2026

In Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, the Supreme Court held that Jharkhand's 2015 Regularisation Rules should be interpreted pragmatically. Eligible irregularly appointed employees who had completed ten years of service by the date the Rules were promulgated were entitled to consideration for regularisation, subject to valid objections. The State was directed to decide the appellants' cases within four months.

Background and dispute

The appellants were daily-wage or contractual employees working on different posts under the Government of Jharkhand. They challenged the denial of regularisation under the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 (the 2015 Regularisation Rules).

On 17 November 2016, the Jharkhand High Court rejected their claims on the understanding that the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, required completion of ten years of service by 10 April 2006. The appellants pointed out that Jharkhand had been created only on 15 November 2000, making that reading particularly problematic for employees appointed by the new State. They also referred to State resolutions of 18 and 19 July 2009 granting regularisation benefits to certain employees.

Legal issue before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether Jharkhand could deny the benefit of its 2015 Regularisation Rules merely because employees had not completed ten years of service by the date of the Umadevi judgment, even if they completed ten years by the time the State's Rules came into force.

Supreme Court's decision and directions

The Court held that the High Court had adopted an impractical interpretation of Umadevi (3) and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. It stressed that Umadevi sought both to stop irregular public appointments in the future and to provide a limited, one-time measure for qualifying employees already serving the State.

The Court criticised the State's continuation of irregular appointments long after Umadevi, while withholding regularisation from workers who had rendered lengthy service. It explained that employees' interests must also be considered rather than examining the issue solely from the government's financial perspective.

Operative direction: Employees who had completed ten years of service as of the promulgation of the 2015 Rules should receive the benefit of that service and be regularised unless there was a valid objection, such as misconduct. The High Court judgment was set aside and the State was directed to take a decision concerning the appellants within four months of 1 August 2018. This four-month direction was specific to that litigation, not a recurring deadline for every regularisation application.

Constitutional provisions and legal principles explained

Article 14: Equality before the law

Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. State decisions on employment and regularisation must not be arbitrary or irrationally discriminatory.

Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Recruitment to public posts must ordinarily follow a fair, open process consistent with applicable recruitment rules; regularisation cannot become a route to bypass that constitutional requirement.

Umadevi (3): One-time exception, not automatic regularisation

The Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) disapproved the practice of perpetuating temporary or irregular public appointments. Paragraph 53 recognised a limited one-time exercise for certain irregularly appointed, duly qualified employees who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without protection from court or tribunal orders. This is not an unrestricted right for every contract or daily-wage worker.

M.L. Kesari: Implementing the one-time exercise

M.L. Kesari explained that authorities should identify qualifying employees and assess their service, qualifications and sanctioned posts. A mere defect in recruitment procedure is not necessarily equivalent to an illegal appointment.

Subsequent Supreme Court developments

In Jaggo v. Union of India (20 December 2024), the Supreme Court emphasised that the substance of long-standing, continuing public work and the circumstances of appointment matter when assessing regularisation claims. The decision does not eliminate constitutional recruitment safeguards.

More recently, in a Supreme Court judgment dated 7 May 2026 concerning para-teachers, the Court reaffirmed that participation and consideration under applicable recruitment rules do not, by themselves, create an unconditional right to regularisation. It distinguished a one-time exception under Umadevi from blanket regularisation contrary to statutory rules. Each claim must be assessed against the governing service rules, qualifications, sanctioned vacancies and facts.

Practical implications for employees and departments

• Identify the applicable State or departmental regularisation scheme and its relevant eligibility date.
• Verify the nature of appointment, length and continuity of service, qualifications, sanctioned posts and any valid objections.
• Distinguish an irregular appointment from an illegal appointment; the distinction can be decisive.
• Do not assume that ten years of service alone automatically confers permanent status.
• Apply Narendra Kumar Tiwari in its Jharkhand-specific statutory context, while considering later binding precedents.

Read the original judgment

Supreme Court official PDF: Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, 1 August 2018

Read the judgment in the LawDadi archive (PDF)

This article explains the 2018 decision and selected subsequent developments. It is not a substitute for checking the current service rules, subsequent orders and facts of an individual case.