Long-serving repeatedly engaged employees must receive permanent classification and minimum pay under applicable government policy.

The petitioner was appointed as a Section Writer on 4 November 1995 after due procedure and continued to be engaged by the State Government for approximately 31 years.

His name appeared in information furnished by the Collector concerning regularization of Section Writers.

Several allegedly junior and similarly situated Section Writers were absorbed or regularized as Assistant Grade-III pursuant to orders passed in earlier writ proceedings, while the petitioner’s claim was not considered.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in light of Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava & Ors. and at par with already regularized employees; however, his representation was rejected on 20 January 2022, principally on the ground that he had crossed 40 years of age.

The petitioner also sought the benefit of the State Government’s policy dated 7 October 2016, which contemplated classification of eligible daily-wage employees as permanent employees and payment of the minimum of the applicable pay scale.

The State contended that the petitioner had not been appointed against a sanctioned vacant post and was therefore not entitled to regularization or classification under the policy.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization or absorption from the date on which allegedly junior and similarly situated Section Writers were regularized, together with consequential seniority and monetary benefits.

Whether the petitioner, having been continuously engaged by the State Government for more than ten years, was entitled to classification as a permanent employee and payment of the minimum of the applicable pay scale under the policy dated 7 October 2016.

The High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the State Government policy/circular dated 7 October 2016, under which eligible daily-wage employees continuously working for the requisite period could be classified as permanent employees in the appropriate skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled category and paid the minimum of the corresponding pay scale.

The Court relied on Articles 38, 39(a) and 43 of the Constitution, which require the State to promote social and economic justice, secure adequate means of livelihood, and endeavour to provide workers with a living wage and a decent standard of life.

It further followed the coordinate Bench decisions in Ravi Thakur and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 16466/2018, and Paras Rathore and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 5832/2017, which directed consideration of eligible daily-wage employees for permanent classification and minimum pay under the same policy.

The earlier direction concerning consideration of the petitioner’s case in light of Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava & Ors., 2020 (1) MPJR SN 5, was also noted.

The Court found that, although the petitioner’s engagement was initially for limited terms, the State repeatedly extended it and continued to utilise his services for more than three decades, demonstrating a continuing requirement for his work.

The Court treated the 7 October 2016 policy as a welfare measure intended to protect long-serving daily-wage employees who could not be regularized because of the absence of sanctioned vacant posts.

Applying the coordinate Bench decisions, the Court held that the petitioner could not be denied the policy’s benefits merely because he was treated as temporary or had not been appointed against a sanctioned post, particularly when he had been continuously engaged for well over ten years.

The Court did not grant the claimed retrospective regularization, seniority or arrears against the junior employees; instead, it resolved the matter on the narrower basis of entitlement to classification and minimum pay under the 2016 policy.

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

The Court consequently granted the petitioner the benefit of permanent classification and the applicable minimum pay-scale-related benefits, but did not expressly order retrospective regularization from the date of regularization of the allegedly junior employees, restoration of seniority, or payment of arrears with 18% interest.