Daily-wage workers appointed by Jan Bhagidari Samiti without State permission are not entitled to Sthayi Karmi status.

The respondents were Class III and Class IV personnel working at Sanjay Gandhi Smriti Government College, Sidhi, and claimed to have served as daily-wage employees for more than 15 years.

Their engagement was stated to have been made under the “Jan Bhagidari Samiti” scheme introduced by the Higher Education Department’s notification dated 30 September 1996.

The respondents claimed eligibility for conferment of “Sthayi Karmi” status under the General Administration Department circular dated 7 October 2016, which extended the benefit to daily-wage employees working on 16 May 2007 and continuing up to 1 September 2016.

The Single Judge allowed their writ petition and directed the State to grant them such status.

The State’s writ appeal was initially dismissed with liberty to seek review in view of the circular dated 9 May 2023. The subsequent review petition was dismissed on 5 May 2026, leading to the present appeal.

The State also sought condonation of a delay of 119 days.

Whether the respondents established that they were daily-wage employees working on or before 16 May 2007 and continuously up to 1 September 2016, so as to qualify for “Sthayi Karmi” status under the circular dated 7 October 2016?

Whether engagement under the “Jan Bhagidari Samiti” scheme, without prior permission of the State Government or creation of sanctioned posts, could confer eligibility for the benefits available to State daily-wage employees?

Whether the circulars dated 9 May 2023 and 5 October 2023, including considerations concerning the financial resources of autonomous colleges, supported or restricted the respondents’ claim?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown.

It considered the eligibility conditions under the General Administration Department circular dated 7 October 2016, particularly clause 1.8, requiring the employee to have been engaged on or before 16 May 2007 and to have continued up to 1 September 2016, subject to the applicable requirement of governmental permission.

The Court also relied on the notification dated 30 September 1996 governing the “Jan Bhagidari Samiti,” under which the Samiti could not appoint employees or create new posts without prior permission of the State Government.

The Court referred to Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199; Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531; and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501, in support of consideration of the matter on merits after condonation of delay.

It further considered the circulars dated 9 May 2023 and 5 October 2023, including the financial capacity of the concerned college.

The Court held that the respondents had not produced documentary evidence proving that they were working as daily-wage employees on 16 May 2007.

The labour-charge bills produced by them commenced from October 2010 and did not establish service from the qualifying date or continuous engagement until 1 September 2016.

Further, their engagement was attributable to the “Jan Bhagidari Samiti,” and not to an appointment by the State Government or against sanctioned posts.

Under the 1996 notification, the Samiti lacked authority to appoint employees or create posts without prior governmental approval, and no such approval was shown.

The Court therefore found that payment of labour charges alone could not establish the status of regular daily-wage employees entitled to the 2016 policy.

It also observed that the later circular dated 5 October 2023 required consideration of the college’s financial position, particularly since colleges had become autonomous and were required to generate their own resources.

Accordingly, the Single Judge’s finding that the respondents were eligible for “Sthayi Karmi” status was held to be erroneous.

It held that they failed to prove the requisite period of engagement, lacked evidence of valid governmental appointment or permission, and could not claim “Sthayi Karmi” status merely on the basis of labour-charge bills or engagement through the “Jan Bhagidari Samiti”.

The 119-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The writ appeal was allowed, and the order of the Single Judge directing conferment of “Sthayi Karmi” status was set aside.