Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 309 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Regularization of employment – Contingency paid employees – Eligibility for regular pay scale under government circulars – Whether part-time sweepers appointed under the Special Recruitment Drive were entitled to regular pay scale after completing three years of service – Interpretation of Circular dated 10.05.1984.

Held: Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees working under sanctioned posts and appointed through a selection process cannot be denied regular pay scale once they fulfill the required tenure as per government circulars. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in distinguishing the case from Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of M.P., where similar employees were granted the benefit. The appellants were entitled to regular pay scale under the Circular dated 10.05.1984. (Paras 13–18)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 309
• M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979
• M.P. General Administration Department Circulars:
  • Dated 10.05.1984 (Regarding eligibility for regular pay scale)
  • Dated 07.10.2016 (Regularization of daily wage employees)

Subjects:

Regular Pay Scale – Contingency Paid Employees – Special Recruitment Drive – Temporary Employees – Circular Interpretation – Government Employment

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench ruling that denied regular pay scale to part-time sweepers employed under a Special Recruitment Drive.
2. Who is Asking the Court & Remedy Sought: The appellants, temporary sweepers appointed under government schemes, sought recognition as regular employees with the benefit of a regular pay scale.
3. Reason for Filing the Case: The appellants had completed three years of service and claimed entitlement to a regular pay scale as per the Circular dated 10.05.1984. Their request was denied by the State.
4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now:
   • Single Judge of High Court (12.07.2019): Allowed the writ petition and directed the State to grant regular pay scale.
   • Division Bench of High Court (02.12.2019): Overturned the Single Judge’s order, denying the claim by distinguishing it from Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of M.P.
   • Review Petition (17.01.2020): Dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

a. Whether the appellants, appointed under Special Recruitment Drive, were eligible for a regular pay scale under the 10.05.1984 Circular.
b. Whether their case was distinguishable from Ram Naresh Prajapati v. State of M.P.
c. Whether their continued employment as "part-time sweepers" affected their eligibility for regularization.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellants:

  • Appointed under a legitimate Special Recruitment Drive.
  • Had completed three years of service, fulfilling the criteria for regular pay scale.
  • Government had previously extended similar benefits to other daily wage workers.

• State of Madhya Pradesh:

  • No sanctioned post of part-time sweeper existed.
  • Appellants were engaged for temporary work and were not covered by the Circular.
  • Ram Naresh Prajapati case was different because the petitioners there had been screened and appointed to permanent positions.

Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding:

• The appellants were appointed against sanctioned posts, even though initially categorized as part-time workers.
• They met all the conditions under the Circular dated 10.05.1984, entitling them to a regular pay scale.
• The Division Bench erred in distinguishing their case from Ram Naresh Prajapati.
• The State’s denial was arbitrary, and the appellants had a legal right to claim benefits.

Ratio:

• Employees working under sanctioned posts and completing the prescribed tenure under government circulars are entitled to regularization.
• A mere designation as "part-time" does not exclude eligibility if employment conditions satisfy regular pay scale criteria.
• Government actions should not be arbitrary, and similarly placed employees should receive equal benefits.

Final Order:

• Impugned order of the Division Bench dated 02.12.2019 set aside.
• Single Judge’s order restored.
• State directed to grant regular pay scale to the appellants.

Appeal Allowed.