Case Name: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2025 (SLP (C) Nos. 8613-8614 of 2022)
Date: January 31, 2025
Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1996, the State of Madhya Pradesh launched a Special Recruitment Drive to fill empty Class III and Class IV posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. A Selection Committee was formed, and Appellant No. 6, Ramesh Prasad Prajapati, was appointed temporally on a daily wage basis by an order dated 09.12.1996. Subsequently, a circular issued on 14.09.1998 stated that candidates appointed under the drive would receive a regular pay scale. In 2005, vacancies for part-time sweepers were announced, and eligible candidates from reserved categories were called for interviews. The appellants filed a writ petition in the year 2018 for regular pay under a circular issued in the year 1984, holding that they were appointed through a selection process that was valid and they possessed a status as permanent employees. The Single Judge allowed their plea. However, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal in the year 2019, holding that they do not come within the purview of regular pay. The appellants’ review petition was also dismissed in 2020, leading to the present appeal.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether the appellants, appointed under the Special Recruitment as part-time sweepers, are eligible to get regular pay scale as per the circular?
3. Whether the M.P. General Administration Department circulars and the M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 govern the case to regularize their services?
4. Whether the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court erred in overturning the Single Judge’s decision, which had granted the appellants regular pay-scale benefits?
5. Whether the appellants, having served for more than ten years, have acquired the status of permanent employees under relevant service laws and administrative circulars?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.
- Article 14 of the Constitution India: Equality before law.
ARGUMENTS
Argument of the Appellant:
The appellants aver that they have been appointed under a Special Recruitment Drive against sanctioned and vacant posts, with proper selection. They contend that even though their posts were designated as “part-time sweepers,” since their appointment was on sanctioned posts, they qualify for regularization as well as pay scale alone on the Circular dated 10.05.1984. They cited Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of M.P., asserting that they were similarly placed to the same benefits. They further argued that the rejection of their claim was violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Respondent
The State contended that the appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts but were engaged on a temporary basis due to work necessities. It argued that there was no Screening Committee to assess their eligibility, unlike in Ram Naresh Prajapati, where such scrutiny led to appointments on sanctioned posts. The State maintained that the appellants were not daily wage employees covered under the Circular dated 07.10.2016 and thus were not entitled to the benefits of regularization or a revised pay scale.
ANALYSIS:
The 1984 circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh government provided for the recruitment of contingency-paid employees by the Collector, categorizing them as fixed-wage employees for three years before granting them temporary employee status with revised pay scales. It prescribed that employee who had not attained permanent status by 01.04.1982 could be considered temporary if they met the prescribed educational and eligibility criteria. They argued that they fulfilled the conditions and should receive the benefit. The State of M.P. had previously challenged a similar ruling but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellants, holding that they are entitled to the benefit of a regular pay scale as per the Circular. It further held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in distinguishing the present case from Ram Naresh Prajapati solely on the ground that the latter petitioners were later appointed to sanctioned posts after scrutiny by a Screening Committee. Since no such committee was constituted in the present case, the appellants expressed their willingness to undergo such scrutiny. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the Circular dated 07.10.2016 extended the benefit of regular pay to daily wagers, making it unjust and arbitrary to deny the same to the appellants, who were appointed on sanctioned posts at Collector’s prescribed wages.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court held that the appellants were appointed under a Special Recruitment Drive against sanctioned vacant posts and were entitled to a regular pay scale as per the Circular dated 10.05.1984.The Court focused that denying them the benefit of regularization while granting it to daily wagers under the Circular would be unjust and arbitrary. Due to which, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SHIVRANJNI
