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

The petitioner was engaged by the respondent-department on a contractual basis on 1 June 1998, and his engagement was repeatedly continued for more than 23 years. He sought regularisation/classification and payment of at least the minimum of the applicable pay scale under the State Government’s policy dated 7 October 2016.

The petitioner alleged discrimination because similarly situated part-time Swachhak employees had received regularisation and enhanced pay. In an earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 27466 of 2021, the High Court directed the competent authority to decide his representation; the representation was subsequently rejected on the ground that the 7 October 2016 policy applied only to daily-wage workers and not to contractual, outsourced, or temporary workers.

Whether a contractual worker continuously engaged by the State for more than ten years could be denied classification and payment of the minimum of the applicable pay scale solely because the engagement was contractual rather than daily-wage employment.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the State Government circular dated 7 October 2016, including classification and consequential benefits, despite not being formally appointed as a daily-wage worker.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, requiring equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment, together with the Directive Principles in Articles 38, 39(a), and 43, which direct 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.

It relied on the State Government’s circular dated 7 October 2016, under which eligible long-serving daily-wage workers were to be classified as skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled and paid the minimum of the applicable pay scale where regularisation was not possible for want of sanctioned or vacant posts.

The governing principle applied was that the State cannot arbitrarily deny such protective classification and minimum-pay benefits to workers continuously engaged by it merely by describing them as contractual, outsourced, or part-time workers.

The Court found that although the petitioner’s initial engagement was contractual and for a limited term, the State had repeatedly extended it and had continued to utilise his services for approximately 23 years. This demonstrated a continuing requirement for his work and made the distinction between daily-wage and contractual status insufficient, by itself, to justify denial of the policy’s benefits.

Excluding long-serving contractual workers from classification would deprive them of adequate livelihood and minimum pay despite their substantially continuous service, contrary to the constitutional objectives embodied in Articles 38, 39(a), and 43. The Court therefore held that there was no rational basis for denying the circular’s benefits to contractual, outsourced, or part-time workers who had been consistently engaged by the State for more than ten years.

The Court thus granted the petitioner classification and associated minimum-pay benefits, although the operative direction was framed as classification under the circular rather than as an order of regular appointment to a sanctioned post.