Supreme Court Grants Regular Pay Scale to Temporary Employees in Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., delivered a landmark judgment addressing the rights of temporary government employees who were denied a regular pay scale despite completing the requisite service period. The judgment overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling and affirmed the entitlement of these employees to regular pay and benefits as per government circulars. This case is significant as it sets a precedent for temporary and contingent employees seeking fair compensation under established rules.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, nine individuals employed as part-time sweepers under the Special Recruitment Drive initiated by the Madhya Pradesh government, were appointed on sanctioned posts in the Veterinary Department. Despite fulfilling their service requirements, they were denied a regular pay scale.
They relied on a government circular dated 10.05.1984, which stipulated that employees who completed three years on Collector’s wages would be treated as temporary employees and be entitled to a revised pay scale. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled against them, distinguishing their case from a previous judgment in Ram Naresh Prajapati vs. State of MP, where similarly placed employees were granted regularization.
Aggrieved by this ruling, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, seeking justice and parity with similarly placed employees.
Key Legal Issues
- Were the petitioners entitled to a regular pay scale under the 1984 circular?
- Did the Madhya Pradesh High Court err in distinguishing their case from Ram Naresh Prajapati?
- Did the petitioners fulfill the legal requirements for regularization?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The petitioners were selected through a formal recruitment process and appointed against sanctioned posts.
- They completed more than three years of service, fulfilling the requirements under the 1984 circular.
- The State had granted similar benefits to employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati, and denying them the same benefits was discriminatory.
- A 2016 circular extended regular pay scale benefits to daily wage employees, reinforcing their claim.
- Since they were appointed under a special recruitment drive for reserved categories, denying them benefits amounted to unfair treatment.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The petitioners were engaged on a part-time basis and were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts.
- The case of Ram Naresh Prajapati was different as those employees were later upgraded to other permanent roles.
- The 1984 circular applied only to certain categories of employees, which the petitioners did not fall under.
- Since no formal screening committee assessed their eligibility, they could not be granted the benefits sought.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. The Petitioners Were Appointed Against Sanctioned Posts
The Supreme Court found that the petitioners were engaged under a formal selection process and occupied sanctioned posts.
“The appointment orders make it clear that the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts, although on a temporary basis.”
2. The High Court’s Distinction Was Unwarranted
The Court ruled that the distinction made between the petitioners and those in Ram Naresh Prajapati was erroneous.
“The petitioners were similarly placed as the employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati and thus entitled to the same benefits.”
3. Applicability of the 1984 and 2016 Circulars
The Court emphasized that the 1984 circular explicitly stated that employees on Collector’s wages for three years would qualify for a regular pay scale. Additionally, the 2016 circular extended similar benefits to daily wage employees.
“Even if the State denies the benefit of a regular pay scale after completing three years, the petitioners shall be benefitted from the 2016 circular.”
4. Denial of Regular Pay Scale Was Arbitrary
The Court held that the State of Madhya Pradesh had burdened employees with prolonged litigation despite their legitimate claims. It condemned the arbitrary denial of benefits and stated:
“The petitioners have sufficiently proven that they were employed on regular and sanctioned posts. Their designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts.”
Final Verdict
- The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench judgment.
- It reinstated the Single Judge’s ruling, granting the petitioners a regular pay scale with arrears.
- The State was directed to implement the order within three months.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that temporary government employees cannot be arbitrarily denied regularization when they meet the prescribed criteria. The decision ensures that similarly placed employees receive equal treatment under the law and prevents the misuse of legal technicalities to deprive workers of their rightful benefits.
Petitioner Name: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors..Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale.Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.Judgment Date: 31-01-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: rakesh-kumar-charmak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-31-01-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
