Long-serving daily-rated employee’s regularisation claim must be reconsidered under applicable policy and Supreme Court principles.

The petitioner was appointed as a washerwoman on a daily-rated basis in the Public Works Department, Jabalpur, in February 1982 and was subsequently granted fixed pay under the work-charge paid fund by order dated 10 July 1984.

She claimed regular pay-scale benefits under the Government Circular dated 22 November 1988, which allegedly extended such benefit to daily-rated employees appointed before 1 January 1984 and completing the requisite service by 1 April 1987.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to decide her representation by a speaking order; thereafter, the competent authority rejected her claim on 15 June 2016, relying on the M.P. Daily Rated Employee (Service Conditions) Rules, 2013.

The petitioner also sought correction of her NPS record, in which her appointment date was allegedly recorded as 17 January 2014 instead of 10 July 1984.

The Court considered the Government Circular dated 22 November 1988, under which eligible daily-rated employees appointed before 1 January 1984 and completing the requisite period of service could be granted regular pay scale.

It also considered the M.P. Daily Rated Employee (Service Conditions) Rules, 2013, which the respondents relied upon to reject the claim.

Relying on the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in Jaggu v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 29214 of 2019, the Court noted that long-serving employees in irregular, as opposed to illegal, appointments may warrant consideration for regularisation as a one-time measure, particularly where they have worked continuously for more than ten years.

The Court further applied the principle that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi should not be mechanically invoked to reject legitimate claims of long-serving employees whose appointments are not illegal.

The Court found that the petitioner’s initial appointment in February 1982 and her subsequent placement on fixed pay under the work-charge paid fund were undisputed.

Her case therefore fell within the factual category addressed by the 1988 Circular, and she asserted that similarly situated employees had received regular pay-scale benefits.

The respondents had not disputed her continuous service or the extension of the Circular’s benefit to similarly situated employees.

The rejection order, however, had primarily relied on the 2013 Rules without adequately examining the petitioner’s claim under the earlier Circular or the principles governing long-serving daily-rated employees.

In light of the Supreme Court authorities and the petitioner’s prolonged continuous service on fixed remuneration, the Court held that her claim required fresh consideration.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation along with a certified copy of the judgment within fifteen days.

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the certified copy.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.