Outsourced workers performing comparable duties are entitled to the corresponding minimum regular pay scale.

The 28 petitioners were engaged by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) as contractual/outsourced workers, including labourers, meter readers and bill dispatchers, between 1996 and 2008. They claimed that they had continued to work for APDCL for periods extending beyond 10 years, in some cases for more than two decades, without regularisation or payment of the minimum of the pay scale applicable to comparable regular Grade-IV employees.

The petitioners had participated in APDCL’s 2018 recruitment process for the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant (experienced), but although their names appeared in the provisional merit list, they were not included in the shortlist for document verification.

In WP(C) No. 1351/2020, the High Court directed APDCL to consider their individual claims in accordance with the applicable principles governing regularisation and minimum pay-scale benefits.

Following verification of engagement orders, payment records and service particulars, APDCL issued a speaking order dated 21 March 2023 rejecting the claims. It held that none of the petitioners had completed 10 years of service as on 10 April 2006, their engagements were not against sanctioned vacant posts, and extending minimum pay-scale benefits to more than 800 similarly situated workers would create an annual financial burden of approximately ₹21.85 crores.

During the pendency of the present petition, APDCL’s Board adopted Resolution No. 93(I)(II) dated 28 June 2023 and issued Office Order dated 2 December 2023, enhancing remuneration for eligible outsourced workers according to length of engagement. The benefit was extended to 27 of the 28 petitioners through orders dated 14 December 2023; petitioner No. 3 had died before those orders were issued.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation under the one-time exception recognised in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi on the basis of their length of service?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to corresponding regularly appointed Grade-IV employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work, notwithstanding their contractual or outsourced status?

Whether APDCL’s enhanced-remuneration orders sufficiently addressed the petitioners’ claim for minimum pay-scale benefits, and whether the benefit had been extended to all eligible petitioners?

The Court applied the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, under which irregularly appointed employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 10 April 2006, without the intervention of court orders and against sanctioned posts, could be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, which holds that temporary employees performing duties and responsibilities similar to those of regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the applicable regular pay scale, subject to comparison of the actual duties performed.

The Court further recognised that the nature of contractual engagement does not, by itself, defeat a claim for minimum pay where the work is comparable, and that financial burden alone cannot substitute for an individual assessment of entitlement.

The Court held that the regularisation claim could not succeed under Umadevi. Even on the petitioners’ own asserted dates of engagement, petitioner Nos. 2, 14 and 15 had not completed 10 years of service by the decisive date of 10 April 2006; consequently, they did not fall within the one-time regularisation category recognised in Umadevi.

The Court also noted APDCL’s position that the engagements were need-based and not against sanctioned posts.

However, the Court distinguished regularisation from minimum pay-scale entitlement. Applying Jagjit Singh, it held that the absence of a right to regularisation does not automatically preclude a claim for the minimum of the regular pay scale.

Since the petitioners had worked for APDCL for substantial periods and claimed to have performed duties comparable to those of regular Grade-IV employees, their entitlement had to be determined by examining the actual duties and responsibilities performed, rather than merely their outsourced status or the length-based enhanced remuneration granted under APDCL’s later office order.

The Court therefore directed an individual assessment instead of granting the minimum pay scale automatically.

It held, however, that the petitioners’ claim for the minimum of the pay scale could not be rejected solely because they were outsourced or contractual workers.

APDCL was directed to examine each petitioner’s actual duties and responsibilities against the corresponding regular Grade-IV posts and, where the work was found comparable, to pay the applicable minimum of the regular pay scale in accordance with Jagjit Singh.

APDCL was further directed to verify whether any eligible petitioner had not received the enhanced remuneration under the Office Order dated 2 December 2023 and to extend that benefit where applicable.

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