PANAJI: In a major relief to long-serving workers of the Goa PWD Labour Supply Society, the Supreme Court has directed the Goa government to frame a regularisation scheme and absorb eligible workers into government service.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by Rupesh Gaonkar and other workers, overturning the 2023 judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa.
The Supreme Court said the State could not deny permanent employment by citing procedural lapses in its own administrative process. The government had taken a 2014 decision granting temporary status to the workers and had acted on it for several years.
The court observed that the State, as a welfare government, cannot continue to use the services of workers for decades while refusing to honour its commitment to provide them permanent employment because of administrative shortcomings attributable to the government itself.
The court also noted that the PWD Labour Supply Society was established by the government to protect labourers from exploitation and facilitate their eventual entry into government service. It therefore could not be treated like a private labour contractor.
The State has been given four months to formulate a regularisation scheme. The order applies only to the society members who were part of the writ petition filed on February 9, 2021.
The workers will be absorbed according to the categories assigned during the 2013 classification exercise. If sanctioned vacancies are insufficient, the government must create supernumerary posts for the concerned workers. These posts will lapse once the respective employees retire, resign or leave service.
The Supreme Court has also directed that the workers be treated as regular employees from February 9, 2021, making them eligible for benefits including seniority and pension. However, they will not receive salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the period before the judgment.
The court further clarified that the ruling is limited to the workers covered by the present case and does not automatically extend to other employees making similar claims.
