Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 31 January 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Appellants: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Others
Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Acts & Sections Involved:
M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979
Article 309 of the Constitution of India
Circulars dated 10.05.1984 & 07.10.2016 by the General Administration Department, MP
Cited Judgment: Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Appeal No.197 of 2016)
Introduction
This case concerns the right of temporary employees, particularly those employed under the Special Recruitment Drive of Madhya Pradesh, to claim regular pay scales. The appellants, who were initially appointed as part-time sweepers (Swachchkar) under the said scheme, challenged the denial of a regular pay scale despite completing the required period of service.
The Supreme Court, in setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reaffirmed the entitlement of temporary employees to regular pay scales when fulfilling the necessary conditions under the relevant circulars.
Factual Background
The appellants were appointed as part-time sweepers in the Veterinary Department under the Special Recruitment Drive, aimed at filling backlog vacancies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Their appointment was made through a Selection Committee constituted at the district level, and they were engaged at the pay rates prescribed by the Collector.
Key Developments
The Circular of 10.05.1984 allowed temporary employees appointed through selection to be considered for a revised pay scale upon completion of three years of service.
The Circular of 07.10.2016 further provided for regularisation of daily wage employees who had been working since 16.05.2007.
The appellants sought regularisation based on the precedent set in Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case, where the High Court granted similar relief.
The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favour of the appellants, acknowledging that they were similarly placed as those in the Ram Naresh Prajapati case and thus eligible for regular pay.
The Division Bench reversed the ruling, distinguishing the appellants from the Ram Naresh Prajapati case and holding that they were not entitled to the same benefits.
The Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench’s ruling, upholding the rights of the appellants.
Legal Issues Considered
1. Applicability of the 10.05.1984 Circular
The circular stipulated that employees working on fixed wages for three years and selected by a valid Selection Committee would be entitled to revised pay scales.
Supreme Court’s View:
“If an employee continues to work at Collector’s rate for a period of three years, they will be considered a temporary employee and will be entitled to a revised pay scale.”
The appellants, fulfilling these conditions, were thus entitled to the benefits.
2. Parity with the Ram Naresh Prajapati Case
The Ram Naresh Prajapati case had granted regular pay scales to similarly placed employees. The State distinguished the two cases, arguing that in Ram Naresh Prajapati, the employees were later upgraded to roles like Attendant and Watchman, whereas the appellants remained part-time sweepers.
Supreme Court’s View:
“The factual distinction relied upon by the Division Bench is insufficient to conclude that the appellants are differently situated. Their initial appointments were against sanctioned posts.”
Thus, the Court held that the appellants were similarly placed and must be granted equal relief.
3. Justification for Denial of Regular Pay Scale
The State argued that the appellants:
Were not appointed against permanent posts.
Were engaged only for work necessity.
Had no Screening Committee to evaluate their eligibility.
Supreme Court’s View:
“The appointment orders themselves indicate that the appellants were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts. This contradicts the State’s argument that they were engaged merely for necessity.”
Thus, the appellants were entitled to permanent employee status and corresponding pay benefits.
Key Judicial Observations
The Supreme Court made several important remarks regarding how the High Court and State authorities handled the case:
Failure to apply precedent:
“The Division Bench erred in distinguishing the case from Ram Naresh Prajapati without sufficient justification.”
State's inconsistent approach:
“The State extended benefits to similarly placed employees but denied the same to the appellants without valid grounds.”
Need for proper scrutiny:
“If scrutiny is required, the appellants are willing to undergo such process. However, mere absence of scrutiny does not justify denying benefits.”
Conclusion and Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for temporary employees in government service:
Reinforces equal treatment – Temporary employees fulfilling eligibility criteria must be granted benefits similar to those in past cases.
Prevents arbitrary denial of rights – The State cannot selectively apply precedents or deny benefits without strong legal justification.
Strengthens job security for government recruits – Employees appointed under recruitment drives must not be unfairly deprived of regular pay scales.
Final Ruling:
The judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was set aside.
The order of the Single Judge was upheld.
The appellants were granted regular pay scale benefits as per the 10.05.1984 circular.
The State was directed to implement the judgment accordingly.
This decision reaffirms the principle that government employees engaged under official recruitment processes cannot be arbitrarily denied financial and service benefits. It sets a strong precedent for fair employment policies in public administration.
Comments