Long-serving daily-wage employees have no enforceable right to continuation without a sanctioned post.

The petitioner claimed to have been engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar from 16 June 1981 at Government Sanjay Nikunj, Dehalwada, District Vidisha. He alleged continuous service, non-payment of wages from January 2009 to December 2014, and victimisation for pursuing regularisation proceedings and making complaints against the authorities.

The respondents contended that he was engaged only from time to time as a daily-wage labourer, that no sanctioned post of Chowkidar existed, and that he had unauthorisedly occupied a Government quarter.

During execution of an eviction order dated 9 January 2013, an incident allegedly occurred resulting in registration of an FIR under Sections 353, 332, 294 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of the SC/ST Act, followed by his arrest on 18 October 2017.

His daily-wage engagement was discontinued by order dated 25 October 2017, allegedly on account of the criminal case.

During the pendency of the writ petition, he was convicted under Section 323 IPC by judgment dated 25 April 2024 and sentenced to eight days’ imprisonment, already undergone, with a fine of ₹1,000.

Whether a daily-wage employee, engaged from time to time against no sanctioned post, acquires a legal or enforceable right to continue merely because of long service.

Whether discontinuance of the petitioner’s daily-wage engagement required a departmental enquiry and compliance with the safeguards applicable to removal from regular Government service.

Whether Clause 10 of the M.P. Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari (Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013 barred discontinuance merely because a criminal case was pending.

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction and the absence of a sanctioned post or regular appointment, the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct reinstatement.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to create a post or confer continuation in service where no sanctioned post or enforceable right exists.

Clause 10 of the M.P. Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari (Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013 may protect a daily-wage employee against removal solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, but does not confer a permanent or absolute right to continue.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118; Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1; and State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, the Court reiterated that long or casual service does not create a right to regularisation, permanency, or continuation contrary to the sanctioned-post and public-employment framework.

Under State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, discontinuance of a temporary or daily-wage employee does not automatically amount to dismissal or require reinstatement, even where procedural defects are alleged.

The Court also referred to Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P., 2004 (4) MPLJ 555, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, and Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) v. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377, regarding action based on conduct leading to conviction and the inapplicability of a regular departmental enquiry in such circumstances.

The Court found that the petitioner was not holding a regular Government post but was engaged intermittently as a daily-wage worker, and that no sanctioned post of Chowkidar existed; therefore, long service did not create an enforceable right to continuation or regularisation.

The Court distinguished discontinuance of a daily-wage engagement from removal of a regular employee and held that the procedural protections applicable to major punishment in regular service could not be invoked in the same manner.

Although Clause 10 could preclude removal solely because of a pending criminal case, it did not overcome the absence of a sanctioned post or confer permanent employment.

The petitioner’s subsequent conviction under Section 323 IPC was treated not as retrospective justification of the original order, but as a relevant circumstance in determining whether equitable reinstatement should be granted under Article 226.

The Court also rejected the allegations of mala fides and victimisation as unsubstantiated, particularly in light of the conviction.

Since the Government quarter had already been vacated, the later show-cause notice had no continuing independent effect.

A departmental enquiry was not mandatory before discontinuing his intermittent daily-wage engagement, and Clause 10 did not confer an absolute right to continuation.

In view of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction, lack of regular status, and absence of an enforceable right to hold the post, the Court declined to order reinstatement or continuation under Article 226.

The writ petition challenging the orders dated 25 October 2017 and 8 January 2018 was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.