Daily-wage skilled workers treated as permanent employees qualify for the increment due after retirement.

The appellants and other petitioners had served in Gujarat’s Irrigation Department as daily-wage skilled workers for more than 30 years and retired on 30 June in different years.

They sought the increment falling due on 1 July, together with consequential pensionary benefits and arrears.

The High Court’s Single Judge allowed their claim, relying on Director (Administration and Human Resources), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, but the Division Bench reversed that decision on the State’s argument that daily wagers were not entitled to the increment.

The employees appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether daily-wage skilled workers treated as permanent employees under the Gujarat Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 were entitled to the increment due on the day after their retirement.

Whether the appellants were entitled to enhanced pension and arrears, and, if so, for what period and subject to what conditions.

The Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 provided that qualifying daily-wage skilled workers were to be treated as permanent, placed in the relevant running pay scale, and given specified allowances and retiral benefits; their period in permanent employment was pensionable.

In C.P. Mundinamani, the Court recognised entitlement to an increment earned through service completed before retirement.

The subsequent directions in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj governed the temporal extent of enhanced pension: under the modified clause (d), qualifying retired employees who had filed a writ petition or other specified proceeding were entitled to enhanced pension for the three years preceding the month in which it was filed; the Court also directed that no interest be paid on arrears, while non-compliance with a specified payment deadline could attract interest from the date of default.

Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj likewise held that interest was not payable on arrears.

The State did not dispute that the petitioners fell within the category covered by the 1988 Resolution.

Because that Resolution treated qualifying workers as permanent for pay-scale, pension, and retirement-benefit purposes, their daily-wage status alone could not exclude them from the increment principle in C.P. Mundinamani.

The appellants had filed their writ petition in 2022 and therefore fell within modified clause (d) of the M. Siddaraj directions, entitling them to enhanced pension, including the increment, for the three years preceding the month of filing.

The authorities were to calculate each employee’s entitlement individually, and interest would arise only if they failed to meet the Court’s payment deadline.

It held that the appellants were entitled to the increment and the resulting enhanced pension, subject to the three-year arrears period prescribed by modified clause (d) of M. Siddaraj.

The authorities were directed to determine the amounts due to the appellants and the pro forma respondents and pay them within 30 days; otherwise, interest at 6% per annum would accrue from the date of default until payment.

No costs were awarded.