Fixed and daily wage employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale.

The petitioners were engaged by the respondent-Panchayat on a fixed wage of ₹2,500/- per month. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a daily wage driver on 16.05.2012, and Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a computer operator on 01.01.2004.

They sought the benefit of the Finance Department circular dated 16.07.2019, which mandates the payment of the minimum of the pay scale to part-time/fixed-wage employees.

Their claims were rejected by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad, via an office order dated 12.12.2022, on the grounds that their status as fixed-wage/daily-wage workers disqualified them from the benefits of the 2019 circular.

The petitioners subsequently challenged this rejection, asserting that their case fell within the protective ambit of prior judicial precedents.

1. Whether the petitioners, as fixed-wage employees, are entitled to the benefits of the Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019 regarding the minimum of the pay scale.

2. Whether the rejection order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the District Development Officer is legally sustainable in light of the Coordinate Bench's decision in SCA No. 6852 of 2020.

The Court primarily relied upon the Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019, which provides for the payment of minimum pay scales to certain categories of employees.

It applied the legal framework established by the Coordinate Bench of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 6852 of 2020 and allied matters (decided on 19.07.2022), which categorized employees into eight groups and held them all entitled to the circular's benefits.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611, which established that appointing persons on a 29-day basis with artificial breaks to deny benefits is legally impermissible.

The Court observed that the petitioners' situation squarely falls within "Category 3" of the eight categories carved out in the precedent judgment of SCA No. 6852 of 2020.

This category specifically addresses individuals appointed on a fixed-pay basis, often subject to artificial breaks, who have served for several years.

The Court noted that the respondent authorities failed to dispute the fact that the petitioners’ service conditions aligned with this category.

Consequently, the reasoning used by the District Development Officer to reject the claim—that the petitioners were merely fixed-wage or daily-wage workers—was found to be in direct conflict with the settled position of law that such employees cannot be denied the minimum of the pay scale.

The Court emphasized that since the Coordinate Bench had already adjudicated that all eight identified categories were entitled to the 2019 circular benefits, the petitioners were entitled to the same relief.

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Government Circular dated 16.07.2019.

The respondents were directed to calculate the difference in salary, including 6% interest as per the circular, on or before 31.05.2026, and to ensure the payment is disbursed to the petitioners by 30.06.2026.

Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.