Contractual workers with ten years’ continuous service entitled to classification and minimum pay benefits under daily wager policy.

The petitioners were engaged by the respondent-department on a contract basis starting July 30, 2009

Although initially appointed for a limited term, their contracts were extended periodically, resulting in over 16 years of continuous service

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the State to grant them "permanent status" and the minimum of the pay scale admissible to their posts, as per the State Government policy dated October 7, 2016

The State resisted the petition, contending that the 2016 policy was intended specifically for daily wagers who could not be regularized and explicitly excluded workers engaged on a contract, outsourced, or temporary basis

Whether contract employees who have been consistently engaged for over ten years are entitled to the benefit of classification and permanent status under the State policy dated October 7, 2016

Whether the exclusion of contract, outsourced, or part-time workers from the benefits of the 2016 policy is rational and constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 16, 38, 39(a), and 43 of the Constitution

The court primarily applied the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of India, specifically Article 38 (promotion of social, economic, and political justice), Article 39(a) (right to adequate means of livelihood), and Article 43 (securing a living wage and decent standard of life)

It also relied on the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 16

Furthermore, the court interpreted the State Government Circular dated October 7, 2016, which provides for the classification of daily wagers into skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled categories to ensure they receive a minimum pay scale for a decent living

The court observed that the petitioners’ continuous service for 16 years demonstrated a "constant requirement" for their labor by the State

While the State argued that the 2016 policy was restricted to daily wagers, the court held that the circular must be read in harmony with the State’s constitutional obligations to minimize inequalities and provide economic justice

The court reasoned that there is no rational basis to distinguish between daily wagers and contract or outsourced workers if both have been consistently engaged for over ten years

It determined that denying contract workers the benefit of the policy would deprive them of an adequate means of livelihood and a decent standard of life, which would be inconsistent with the "master stroke" intent of the circular and the mandate of Articles 38, 39(a), and 43

The court directed the respondents to pass orders classifying the petitioners in accordance with the said circular and to extend all consequential benefits, including the minimum of the pay scale admissible to their posts