Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Regular Pay-Scale to Employees Appointed on Sanctioned Posts: Supreme Court Extends Benefit to Special Recruitment Drive Employees

Supreme Court Holds That State Cannot Discriminate Against Employees Based on Technicalities When They Meet Regularization Criteria. Supreme Court of India ruling in favor of employees appointed under a Special Recruitment Drive, who were denied regular pay-scale benefits under a State Government circular dated 10.05.1984. The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench ruling and upheld the Single Judge’s order, restoring the employees' entitlement to regular pay.

"The State cannot create artificial distinctions to deny employees their rightful pay-scale benefits when their recruitment process, employment conditions, and service tenure fulfill all prescribed criteria. Such arbitrary discrimination violates Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be sustained," observed the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment in public employment.

Denial of Regular Pay-Scale Despite Fulfilling Criteria
The appellants were appointed between 1996 and 2007 as part-time sweepers (Swachchkar) under the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department, following a Special Recruitment Drive initiated by the State Government to fill reserved category vacancies. Their appointments were made on sanctioned posts based on recommendations from a Selection Committee constituted by the District Collector, and they were employed on fixed wages as per Collector’s rates.

The employees completed more than ten years of service, fulfilling the criteria under Clause 6 of the 1984 Circular, which mandated that employees who worked for three years as temporary staff would be entitled to regular pay-scales. Despite this, the State Government denied them regular pay, arguing that they were not screened by a formal Screening Committee, unlike other similarly placed employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of M.P.

The employees filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking parity with the Ram Naresh Prajapati case. The Single Judge ruled in their favor on July 12, 2019, directing the State to grant them regular pay-scales from the date of completion of three years of service.

However, the State Government appealed, and the Division Bench of the High Court, on December 2, 2019, reversed the Single Judge’s decision, denying the benefit on the ground that the employees had never been screened by a formal committee, unlike those in Ram Naresh Prajapati. The employees filed a review petition, which was dismissed, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

State Cannot Create Artificial Distinctions to Deny Benefits
The Supreme Court found no reasonable justification for denying the appellants the benefits of regular pay-scales when their recruitment process, nature of appointment, and service tenure were identical to those in Ram Naresh Prajapati.

"The fundamental principle of service jurisprudence is that employees performing similar work under identical conditions cannot be treated differently based on arbitrary technicalities. The distinction drawn by the Division Bench is artificial and legally untenable," the Court observed, rejecting the State’s argument that the lack of a Screening Committee was a valid reason to deny benefits.

The Court noted that the only difference between the present case and Ram Naresh Prajapati was the absence of scrutiny by a formal Screening Committee, which was solely due to the State’s failure to constitute such a committee.

"The appellants cannot be penalized for the State’s own inaction in failing to set up a Screening Committee. When the employees fulfill all substantive requirements for regularization, denying them benefits on such procedural grounds amounts to manifest arbitrariness," the Court stated, declaring the denial of benefits unconstitutional under Article 14.

Application of 1984 and 2016 Circulars: Entitlement to Regular Pay-Scale and Regularization
The Supreme Court further held that the employees were also eligible for benefits under the 2016 Circular, which provided for the regularization of daily-wage workers who had been in service since May 16, 2007.

"It would be unjust and unfair to exclude the appellants from the scope of the 2016 Circular when they were originally appointed as daily wagers and later placed on sanctioned posts under a government scheme. The principle of fairness demands that they receive the same benefit," the Court ruled, directing the State to regularize their services under the 2016 framework as well.

Rejecting the State’s contention that no sanctioned post existed for part-time sweepers, the Supreme Court pointed out that all appointment orders clearly indicated that these were sanctioned vacancies under a government recruitment scheme.

"The appointment letters of the appellants explicitly state that they were recruited under a government-prescribed Special Recruitment Drive against vacant and sanctioned posts. The State cannot now turn around and argue that these posts never existed," the Court stated, calling the State’s argument an afterthought to deny legitimate claims.

Supreme Court Restores Employees' Rights to Regular Pay-Scale
After examining the entire factual and legal matrix, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order dated December 2, 2019, and restored the Single Judge’s judgment dated July 12, 2019, which had extended regular pay-scale benefits to the appellants.

"The appellants have been deprived of their rightful entitlement for years, despite clear government policy in their favor. The principle of equity and justice demands that they be placed at par with their counterparts in Ram Naresh Prajapati and receive their rightful wages," the Court declared, allowing the appeal.

The State Government was directed to implement the order within three months, ensuring that the employees receive regular pay-scales along with arrears from the date of completion of three years of service.

This ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of government employees who have been arbitrarily denied benefits despite meeting all necessary criteria. By emphasizing that procedural shortcomings by the State cannot be used to deny substantive rights, the Court has set an important precedent for cases involving employment regularization and pay parity.

By extending the benefits of both the 1984 and 2016 Circulars, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that employees working under similar conditions cannot be treated differently. The judgment ensures that the State cannot evade its obligations under government schemes through technical loopholes, securing fair wages and job security for thousands of workers in similar situations.

Date of Decision: January 31, 2025