Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and reinstated the judgment of the Single Judge, thereby granting the appellants the benefit of a regular pay scale.
Key Findings by the Supreme Court:
- The appellants were appointed under a Special Recruitment Drive against sanctioned posts and had completed three years of service, making them eligible for regular pay-scale benefits under the Circular dated 10.05.1984.
- The Division Bench wrongly distinguished their case from Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of MP, despite both cases having similar facts and legal principles.
- The Court held that denying regular pay-scale benefits to the appellants was unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the State’s own rules and circulars.
Thus, the Supreme Court restored the decision of the Single Judge, directing the State of Madhya Pradesh to extend regular pay-scale benefits to the appellants after completion of three years of service.
Facts
Recruitment and Initial Appointments
- The State of Madhya Pradesh launched a Special Recruitment Drive to fill vacancies in Class III and Class IV posts for candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
- A Selection Committee was constituted at the district level, and appointments were made against sanctioned and vacant posts.
- The appellants were appointed as part-time sweepers by orders issued by the Deputy Director of Veterinary Services, on recommendations of the Selection Committee, at wages prescribed by the Collector.
- Their appointments were temporary, but their posts were sanctioned and reserved for special category candidates under the Special Recruitment Drive.
State’s Circulars and Rules on Regularization
- The Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”) governed appointments of contingency-paid employees.
- The General Administration Department issued a Circular on 10.05.1984, which provided that:
- Employees recruited through a Selection Committee and appointed on a temporary basis would become eligible for a regular pay scale after three years.
- Those who did not receive permanent employee status by 01.04.1982 would be considered temporary employees and granted the revised pay scale upon fulfilling eligibility criteria.
- The State issued another Circular on 07.10.2016, extending regular pay-scale benefits to daily wage employees.
The Appellants’ Claim for Regularization
- The appellants completed more than three years of service, making them eligible for regularization.
- They submitted representations to the Competent Authority for a regular pay scale based on the order in Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of MP.
- Their representations were rejected on 15.11.2016, leading them to file a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Were the appellants entitled to a regular pay scale under the Circular dated 10.05.1984 after completing three years of service?
- Was the case of the appellants different from Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of MP, as claimed by the State?
- Did the Division Bench of the High Court err in denying the appellants the benefit of a regular pay scale?
- Was the State justified in claiming that the appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Entitlement Under the 1984 Circular:
- The Circular dated 10.05.1984 granted regular pay-scale benefits to temporary employees who completed three years of service.
- The appellants met all conditions under the circular, as they were appointed through a Selection Committee and held sanctioned posts.
- Similarity With Ram Naresh Prajapati:
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted regular pay-scale benefits to employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of MP, under similar circumstances.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against that decision in 2018, with a ₹1,00,000 cost imposed on the State for filing an unnecessary appeal.
- Non-Discrimination:
- The appellants were similarly placed as employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati, and denying them the same benefit was discriminatory.
- The State could not deny benefits solely because the appellants were designated as “part-time” employees, especially since they were appointed against sanctioned posts.
- Reliance on the 2016 Circular:
- The State’s own Circular dated 07.10.2016 extended regular pay-scale benefits to daily wage employees.
- Denying the appellants similar benefits was arbitrary and unfair.
Respondent’s (State of MP) Arguments
- Appointments Were Not Against Sanctioned Posts:
- The State claimed that no sanctioned posts existed for part-time sweepers, and the appellants were hired temporarily for necessity-based work.
- Distinction From Ram Naresh Prajapati:
- The petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati were later appointed as attendants, watchmen, or cattle attendants after screening, whereas the appellants remained part-time sweepers.
- No Entitlement Under the 1984 Circular:
- The State argued that the appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Circular dated 10.05.1984.
- Appointments Were Temporary:
- The State insisted that the appellants were only temporary/contractual workers and were not eligible for regularization.
Analysis of the Law
- Circular Dated 10.05.1984:
- The appellants met the criteria under Clause 6 of this circular, which entitled them to a regular pay scale after three years.
- Circular Dated 07.10.2016:
- The State extended regular pay-scale benefits to daily wage employees, making its refusal to regularize the appellants contradictory and arbitrary.
- 1979 Rules:
- The appellants were appointed under recruitment rules governing contingency-paid employees, further validating their claim for regularization.
Court’s Reasoning
- Appellants Were Appointed Against Sanctioned Posts:
- Their appointments were made under a Special Recruitment Drive, and their posts were reserved under government policy.
- No Justifiable Distinction From Ram Naresh Prajapati:
- The appellants’ case was identical to Ram Naresh Prajapati, and the High Court’s attempt to distinguish it was incorrect.
- State’s Argument Contradicted Its Own Circulars:
- The State’s own policies mandated regularization, making its refusal legally untenable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and reinstated the Single Judge’s decision, thereby granting the appellants a regular pay scale as per the 1984 Circular.
Implications
- Sets Precedent for Other Temporary Employees
- Ensures State Compliance With Its Own Circulars
- Prevents Arbitrary Denial of Benefits
- Could Reduce Future Litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens the legal position of temporary employees seeking regularization and fair treatment under government policies.