Salita Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24747
1 WP-33818-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 33818 of 2026
SALITA PAWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Dalal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Sankhla - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India making a prayer to issue direction to respondents-authorities to
consider her for grant of permanent status.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was
engaged on contract basis vide order dated 27.09.2002. Appointment order
was issued on 26.09.2002. Thereafter services of petitioner was continued by
respondent-department and she is still working with them. It is submitted that
State Government has formulated the policy for classifying employees as
'permanent' and grant them minimum of the pay scale admissible to their
posts. It is submitted that said benefit may also be granted to petitioner.
Respondents are violating Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and
exploiting positions of petitioner in not classifying them and paying them
less salary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
4:42:33 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24747
2 WP-33818-2026
3. Govt. Advocate for respondent-State submitted that State Govt. has

formulated a policy dated 07.10.2016. Policy was formulated to give benefit
to those daily wagers who could not be regularized in service. As per policy,
daily wagers are to be classified as 'skilled', 'semi-skilled' and unskilled'
workers. Such daily wagers, who are working with respondent-department
since last 10 years, are to be given the benefit. It is submitted that said
benefit is not available to those workers who are engaged on contract basis
or are outsourced or they are employed temporarily. It is submitted that
considering aforesaid conditions, benefit of classification has not been
extended to petitioner. There is no illegality in order passed by respondents-
authorities. Reasoned order has been passed, therefore, no interference is
called for in writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found
that though petitioner was employed on contract basis for a limited term but
her contract has been extended by State Government from time to time. Now
petitioner is working for about 14 years or more with the State Government.
She was not classified as 'skilled', 'semi-skilled' and unskilled' worker and
benefit of permanent status is denied to her as she is contract employee.
Policy dated 07.10.2016 was formulated by State Government so that
employees who cannot be regularized in service for want of sanction and
vacant post, can be given benefit of classification and they can be paid salary
minimum of the pay scale admissible to them so that an employee will have
decent living condition. Circular of 07.10.2016 is a master stroke of State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
4:42:33 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24747
3 WP-33818-2026
Government, which is consistent with Article 38, 39(a) and 43. Aforesaid

articles are quoted as under :
38. (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social
order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform
all the institutions of the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the
inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in
status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals
but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.
39. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing--
(a)that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right
to an adequate means to livelihood;
x x x
4 3 . The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable
legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all
workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage,
conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full
enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in
particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries
on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
6. In view of above, since the petitioner is being engaged repeatedly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
4:42:33 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24747
4 WP-33818-2026
by the State Government on contract basis which shows that there is constant

requirement of services of petitioner by the State Government. Petitioner
cannot be given less wages from other persons and denied adequate means of
livelihood, economic justice and decent standard of life. Petitioner ought to
have been given benefit of circular dated 07.10.2016 classifying and granting
permanent status like any other daily wager. There is no rational in not
giving benefit of circular dated 07.10.2016 to 'contract', 'outsourced' and 'part
time' workers engaged by the State Government, if they are consistently
being engaged by the State Government for more than 10 years, then said
workers are also required to be given benefit of classification and are to be
paid minimum of wages of the pay scale admissible to their posts.
7. Resultantly, writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed. Respondents
are directed to pass orders classifying petitioner in accordance with circular
dated 07.10.2016 and extend all consequential benefits available to them.
8. With aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
sumathi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
4:42:33 PM