Work-charge and contingency employees are entitled to Time Bound Promotion Scheme benefits at par with regular employees.

The petitioners were appointed as Class-IV contingency paid employees against sanctioned posts in the respondent department of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

They served for over two decades and were subsequently regularized with a regular pay scale.

However, the respondents denied them consequential service benefits such as Kramonnati (career progression/time-bound promotion) and regular promotions.

The petitioners filed representations, including one dated April 28, 2015, which remained unconsidered, leading to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether contingency paid employees, upon regularization against sanctioned posts, are entitled to Kramonnati and other consequential benefits at par with regular employees.

2. Whether the lack of promotional avenues for employees in the work-charge or contingency establishment constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set in K.L. Asre v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 1070/2003).

The Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 1033) and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 311) dictates that reasonable promotional opportunities must be available in every wing of public service to prevent stagnation and maintain efficiency.

If Time Bound Promotion Schemes are extended to certain cadres (like Drivers) within the Work-charge Establishment, they cannot be discriminatorily withheld from other similarly situated cadres.

The Court observed that the petitioners’ situation was identical to the case of K.L. Asre, where it was held that serving under a Work-charge Establishment does not automatically disqualify an employee from promotional schemes.

The Court reasoned that if the respondents provide time-bound promotions to some employees in the same establishment, denying the same to the petitioners would be arbitrary.

Citing Raghunath Prasad Singh, the Court emphasized that "stagnation kills the desire to serve properly" and directed that the State must provide at least two promotional opportunities or equivalent financial benefits to prevent such stagnation.

The Court determined that since the petitioners were regularized after long service, their claims for Kramonnati must be evaluated in light of these established constitutional and legal principles.

The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation within 15 days.

The competent authority was ordered to decide said representation specifically in light of the judgment in K.L. Asre v. State of M.P. via a speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.