Long-serving contract workers are entitled to classification and minimum pay-scale wages under the 2016 policy.

The petitioner was engaged by the respondent-State department on a contractual basis pursuant to an appointment order dated 26 September 2002 and an engagement order dated 27 September 2002.

Her engagement was repeatedly extended, and she continued to work with the department for approximately 14 years or more.

She sought classification as a permanent employee and payment of at least the minimum of the applicable pay scale under the State Government’s circular dated 7 October 2016.

The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the circular applied only to daily-wage employees and excluded contractual, outsourced, and temporary workers.

The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate directions for grant of permanent status and consequential benefits.

Whether a contractual employee whose engagement has been continuously extended by the State for more than ten years is entitled to classification and payment of the minimum of the applicable pay scale under the circular dated 7 October 2016

Whether excluding consistently engaged contractual, outsourced, or part-time workers from the benefits available to similarly situated daily-wage workers is arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Court applied the State Government’s circular dated 7 October 2016, under which daily-wage workers who had rendered service for at least ten years and could not be regularised for want of sanctioned or vacant posts were to be classified as skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled workers and paid the minimum of the applicable pay scale.

The Court interpreted the policy in light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, requiring non-arbitrary and equal treatment in public employment.

It also relied on the Directive Principles in Articles 38, 39(a), and 43, which require the State to promote social and economic justice, secure adequate means of livelihood, and endeavour to ensure a living wage and decent conditions of work.

The Court held that the petitioner’s repeated contractual engagement for approximately 14 years demonstrated a continuing and genuine requirement for her services by the State, notwithstanding the formal description of her engagement as contractual.

Since the purpose of the 7 October 2016 circular was to provide classification and minimum pay-scale benefits to workers who could not be regularised because of the absence of sanctioned or vacant posts, the Court found no rational basis for denying the same protection solely because the petitioner was labelled a contractual employee.

Such exclusion would permit the State to obtain continuous services at lower wages and would undermine the constitutional objectives of equality, adequate livelihood, economic justice, and a decent standard of life.

The Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders classifying the petitioner in accordance with the circular dated 7 October 2016 and to extend all consequential benefits available under that policy.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with a certified copy to be issued in accordance with the rules.