Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

03 February 2025 9:57 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


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
 

Similar News