Outsourced status does not bar minimum pay scales where duties substantially match regular posts.

The petitioners were engaged by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) on a contractual/outsourced basis as Meter Readers and Bill Clerks and had rendered service for several years.

Following an APDCL advertisement dated 14 August 2018 for posts including Office-cum-Field Assistant, the petitioners participated in the selection process and appeared in the provisional merit list, but were not included in the subsequent shortlist for document verification.

They challenged their exclusion and also sought regularisation in WP(C) No. 5629/2020.

By judgment dated 3 January 2022, the High Court directed APDCL to consider their individual cases in accordance with the applicable principles governing regularisation and minimum pay-scale benefits.

APDCL subsequently rejected their claims by speaking order dated 31 May 2023, stating that none had completed ten years of service as on 10 April 2006, their engagements were need-based and not against sanctioned posts, and that extending minimum pay-scale benefits to similarly situated workers would impose substantial financial liability.

During the writ proceedings, APDCL adopted Resolution No. 93(I)(II) dated 28 June 2023 and issued an Office Order dated 2 December 2023 enhancing remuneration for eligible outsourced workers, including workers with ten or more years’ experience, and the benefit was stated to have been extended to the petitioners.

The petitioners nevertheless pursued their claims for regularisation and the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to comparable Grade-IV employees.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation of their contractual/outsourced services under the one-time exception recognised in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV employees on the basis of equal pay for equal work, notwithstanding their outsourced status.

Whether APDCL’s subsequent enhancement of outsourced-worker remuneration satisfied the petitioners’ claim for minimum pay-scale benefits.

The Court applied the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, under which regularisation is not an automatic consequence of long service and the limited one-time consideration applies to employees who had completed ten years of service as on 10 April 2006, without court intervention and against sanctioned posts.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, which recognises that temporary employees performing duties and responsibilities similar to regular employees may be entitled to the minimum of the corresponding regular pay scale, irrespective of the temporary or outsourced nature of their engagement.

The earlier judgment in WP(C) No. 5629/2020 required APDCL to examine the petitioners’ individual cases for regularisation and/or minimum-pay benefits rather than granting either benefit automatically.

The Court held that the petitioners’ long duration of service, by itself, could not establish a right to regularisation.

Since none had completed ten years of service as on 10 April 2006, they did not fall within the exceptional category contemplated by Umadevi, and the absence of engagement against sanctioned vacant posts further undermined their claim.

However, the Court treated regularisation and minimum pay-scale entitlement as legally distinct.

Under Jagjit Singh, the relevant consideration for minimum pay was not the mode of engagement or length of service, but the actual duties and responsibilities performed and their comparability with those attached to regular Grade-IV posts.

APDCL’s enhanced remuneration scheme was based principally on length of engagement and financial considerations, whereas the petitioners’ claim for minimum pay arose from the nature of their work.

Accordingly, the enhanced remuneration did not conclusively determine or extinguish their separate equal-pay claim.

The Court therefore directed an individual assessment of the duties performed by each petitioner and their comparison with corresponding regular Grade-IV duties.

The claim for minimum pay was not rejected; instead, APDCL was directed to examine each petitioner’s actual duties and responsibilities and, if they were substantially similar to those of corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV employees, to grant the minimum of the applicable pay scale in accordance with Jagjit Singh.

APDCL was also directed to extend the enhanced remuneration under the Office Order dated 2 December 2023 to any eligible petitioner who had not already received it.

The exercise was to be completed within three months, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.