Telangana High Court Directs BHEL to Regularise 29 Ad-Hoc Employees

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has granted relief to 29 para-medical staff employed on an ad hoc basis by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) a decade ago, holding that they were entitled to permanent appointments.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court noted that continuing the ad hoc employment for years was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the ‘Uma Devi’ case (famously known as permanent absorption of temporary employees verdict).

The judge also said that the services of the ad hoc employees working for decades together can be regularised when their selection process was fair, not as backdoor entries and they are qualified to hold the posts.

Justice Bheemapaka faulted the practice adopted by the companies, governments, public sector undertakings and others, of giving short breaks between the contracts of the ad hoc employees, to deny them continuity of service, in order that they will never have the basis to ask for regularisation.

The petitioners in the case were fully qualified to hold their posts, and were initially recruited through employment exchange, via campus selection, and internal circulars. Their selection involved both written tests and interviews, thereby ruling out allegations of irregular or backdoor entry.

Although they were first appointed for six months on a consolidated honorarium, their services were repeatedly extended for more than a decade.

Chikkudu Prabhakar, counsel for the employees, argued that the long, unblemished service of the petitioners, coupled with transparent recruitment and the essential nature of their duties, had created a legitimate expectation of permanency. He brought to the notice of the court that on settlements signed in March 2016, BHEL extended benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, housing facilities, and medical insurance to the petitioners. He argued that this demonstrated the company’s acknowledgment of a permanent need for the services of the petitioners.

BHEL, in its counter, maintained that the staff knowingly accepted temporary terms and could not claim parity with engineering employees. The management argued that extension of statutory benefits did not create a right to permanency.

The court rejected the arguments of the BHEL and observed that after serving more than decade, still of job security and regular pay scales, highlighting an attempt to exploit them by paying lower wages compared to permanent employees.