From bicycle to Moon: Flaying authorities, Supreme Court orders regularisation of ISRO workers behind India’s space legacy

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the 2012 scheme as it provided only temporary employment.

“To disregard or discriminate against such individuals in matters of service recognition would be to undermine the collective ethos that propelled India to the Moon and beyond. The State, as a model employer, cannot afford to treat a segment of its workforce, those who have contributed, however indirectly, to national endeavours of paramount importance, with arbitrariness or indifference,” the Supreme Court bench said on April 29.

It added, “Denying them even the basic courtesy of a recognised service status, while reaping the benefits of their labour, strikes at the root of fairness and dignity in public employment.”

Humble beginnings

• Recalling the humble beginnings of India’s space programme, the top court said that in 1963, when the first sounding rocket was launched from Thumba, its components were transported to the launch site on a bicycle.
• Similarly, in 1981, during the testing of India’s first experimental communication satellite APPLE, the satellite was placed on a bullock cart to create a nonmagnetic environment for antenna pattern tests in an open field.
• These anecdotes, rooted in historical fact, are not mere curiosities; rather, they encapsulate the spirit of ingenuity and resourcefulness.
• In celebrating the glory of our scientific fraternity, we must not overlook the invisible yet indispensable contributions of every individual who formed part of that larger enterprise.
• The success of a rocket or a satellite mission is not the sole outcome of high-level design and propulsion engineering, the Supreme Court noted.

• It is equally the result of a seamless chain of support, from the transportation of materials to the maintenance of facilities and the myriad ancillary tasks that ensure operational efficiency.
• The last man standing in this chain, often belonging to Group-C or Group-D services, performs duties that may appear sporadic or peripheral in isolation.
• However, without their dedicated support, the very materials and logistics essential for scientific advancement would falter in reaching the laboratories and assembly halls of our scientists, the Supreme Court said.
• It is, therefore, a matter of concern that, despite the passage of time and repeated judicial pronouncements, these foundational principles continue to be disregarded in service matters.
• The present case exemplifies how a litigant, often placed at the margins of the system, is compelled to traverse a prolonged and arduous legal journey merely to secure what is justly due.
• In the present case, the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which attained finality upon dismissal of the challenge by this court, ought to have been implemented in their true spirit.
• Instead, the respondents adopted a course that effectively diluted the substance of those directions, prolonging the dispute for years.

3-decade struggle

The appellants were engaged between 1991 and 1997 as daily-wage labourers at ISRO’s Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre in Mahendragiri, performing tasks such as loading, unloading, shifting materials, and maintaining facilities. Despite rendering continuous service for 14 to 26 years, they remained outside the formal employment structure.

Their legal battle began when they sought regularisation under a 1993 scheme granting temporary status to casual labourers. After years of inaction, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which on March 9, 2010, directed the authorities to frame a scheme and create posts to absorb such workers permanently within six months.

This direction attained finality after being upheld by the Madras High Court on March 14, 2011, and by the Supreme Court on July 29, 2011.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the authorities had complied with earlier binding directions of the CAT (affirmed up to the Supreme Court) that required creation of posts and a scheme for permanent absorption, or whether the 2012 “Gang Labourers Scheme”, which continued to engage them as temporary workers, violated those directions.

Final directions

• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the 2012 scheme insofar as it provided only temporary employment.
• It directed the creation of posts and regularisation of the appellants.
• Granted permanent status with retrospective effect from September 9, 2010.
• Extended the benefit of the ruling to all similarly placed workers.
• Ordered compliance within four weeks.

Controversial 2012 scheme

In response to the Supreme Court’s directions in 2011, the authorities introduced the “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012” on September 3, 2012.

However, instead of creating permanent posts, the scheme merely provided for temporary engagement on daily wages up to the age of 60, with a vague possibility of future regularisation.

The workers challenged this, arguing that it was a clear departure from binding judicial directions. After another round of litigation, including dismissal by the tribunal in 2018 and the high court in 2024, the matter returned to the Supreme Court.

Court’s analysis: Scheme vs compliance

• At the heart of the dispute was whether the 2010 CAT order required actual regularisation through post creation or merely the framing of a regulatory scheme.
• Rejecting the Union government’s position, the Supreme Court held that the earlier directions unmistakably required the state to institutionalise employment through sanctioned posts, thereby ending ad hoc arrangements.
• Any scheme that falls short of this requirement cannot be said to be complying with the “letter and spirit” of the directions, the Supreme Court observed.
• It further held that the high court had erred by reopening the merits of regularisation instead of limiting itself to examining compliance with final directions.

Powerful reflections on labour dignity

In a notable departure from conventional service law rulings, the Supreme Court devoted a substantial portion of its judgment to recognising the contribution of support staff in India’s scientific ecosystem.

Recalling the early years of the space programme, the bench noted, “The success of a rocket or a satellite mission… is equally the result of a seamless chain of support… The last man standing in this chain…performs duties that may appear sporadic…however essential.”

It warned that ignoring or discriminating against such workers would undermine the very ethos that propelled India’s scientific progress.

State as model employer

The Supreme Court expressed “serious disapproval” of the authorities’ conduct, noting that the state’s obligation to act as a model employer flows directly from Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

It was observed that forcing workers to undertake a prolonged legal struggle for basic service recognition reflects systemic unfairness and administrative apathy.