Supreme Court Orders Regular Pay Scale for Part-Time Sweepers Appointed Under Special Drive: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 136

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can part-time employees, specifically sweepers, who were appointed under a special recruitment drive, claim a regular pay scale after serving for three years? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the interpretation of a 1984 circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh government. This case revolves around whether these employees, initially hired on a temporary basis, are entitled to the same benefits as regular employees after a certain period of service. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

The case involves several individuals who were appointed as part-time sweepers in the Veterinary Department of Madhya Pradesh under a special recruitment drive aimed at filling vacant positions reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. These appointments were made based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted by the Collector. The employees were initially engaged on a temporary basis at rates prescribed by the Collector.

The dispute arose when these employees sought a regular pay scale, citing a circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department on May 10, 1984. This circular provided that employees completing three years of service after being appointed as temporary employees would be eligible for a revised pay scale. The employees argued that despite being designated as ‘part-time’ sweepers, they were appointed against sanctioned posts and were therefore entitled to the benefits of the circular.

The State of Madhya Pradesh, however, contended that these employees were not appointed against sanctioned posts and were not entitled to a regular pay scale. They also argued that the employees were not similarly situated as those in a previous case, Ram Naresh Prajapati vs. State of M.P., where similar benefits were granted.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking a regular pay scale based on the 1984 circular. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed their petition, drawing a parallel with the case of Ram Naresh Prajapati, where similar benefits were granted. The Single Judge held that the appellants were appointed against sanctioned posts and were entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale after completing three years of service.

However, the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision. A Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, distinguishing the present case from Ram Naresh Prajapati. The Division Bench held that the appellants did not meet the criteria of the 1984 circular as they continued as part-time sweepers and were not upgraded to other posts like the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati. The appellants then filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is based on the following:

• The Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979: These rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, govern the recruitment and service conditions of contingency paid employees in the Veterinary Department of Madhya Pradesh.
• Circular dated 10.05.1984: This circular issued by the M.P. General Administration Department, provides for revised pay scales for employees getting salaries from work-charged/contingency funds. Clause 6 of the circular states:
  
  “Recruitment of the employees of this service will be done by Collector considering them fixed waged employee for initial three years and thereafter temporary employee as per appendix one in revised pay -scale. Such employees appointed in the past, who hold eligibility given in appendix two, will have to appear before the district level committee, however, after being selected, they will be considered member of the service after three years of them joining the service.”
• Circular dated 14.09.1998: This circular issued by the MP General Administration Department, states that candidates appointed on regular posts under the Special Recruitment Drive would be paid the regular pay scale of the concerned post.
• Circular dated 07.10.2016: This circular issued by the General Administration Department of the State, provides for regularization of daily wage employees as permanent employees. It states that employees working on daily wage basis since 16.05.2007 and working on 01.09.2016 would be eligible for regularization and regular pay scale.

These legal provisions and circulars are crucial in determining the eligibility of the appellants for a regular pay scale.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they were appointed under a special recruitment drive against vacant posts, based on the recommendation of a validly constituted Selection Committee.
• They contended that they cannot be denied the benefit of a regular pay scale simply because they were designated as part-time sweepers.
• They relied on the 1984 circular, which provides for a revised pay scale for employees completing three years of service after being appointed as temporary employees.
• The appellants also relied on the 2016 circular, arguing that they should be treated as regular employees, having completed more than ten years of service.
• They argued that they are similarly situated as the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, who were granted similar benefits.
• They expressed their willingness to undergo scrutiny by a Screening Committee, if required by the State.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The State argued that no post of part-time sweeper exists in the department, and the appellants were engaged only for the necessity of work.
• They contended that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts and were not covered under the category of daily wage employees.
• They distinguished the present case from Ram Naresh Prajapati, stating that in that case, the petitioners were appointed on specific sanctioned posts after scrutiny by a Screening Committee.
• The State argued that the appellants were not daily wage employees and hence, not covered under the 2016 circular.
• They stated that no Screening Committee was constituted to scrutinize the case of the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:

1. Whether the appellants, who were appointed as part-time sweepers under a special recruitment drive, are entitled to a regular pay scale after completing three years of service, in light of the circular dated 10.05.1984?
2. Whether the appellants are similarly situated as the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, who were granted similar benefits?
3. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale under the circular dated 07.10.2016?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the judgment in Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors vs State of M.P [CITATION], wherein the High Court had granted a regular pay scale to similarly situated employees.
• The Court applied the Circular dated 10.05.1984, holding that the appellants fulfilled the conditions for grant of revised pay scale.
• The Court also applied the Circular dated 07.10.2016, stating that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale under this circular as well.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Appointment on Sanctioned Posts: The Court emphasized that the appellants were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, even though they were designated as part-time sweepers. This fact was crucial in determining their eligibility for a regular pay scale.
• Similarity with Ram Naresh Prajapati: The Court found that the appellants were similarly situated as the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, where similar benefits were granted. The factual distinction pointed out by the State was not sufficient to differentiate the two cases.
• Fulfillment of Conditions: The Court noted that the appellants fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the 1984 circular, as they had completed three years of service as temporary employees.
• Benefit of 2016 Circular: The Court also considered the 2016 circular, which extended the benefit of regular pay scale to daily wagers, and held that the appellants were entitled to this benefit as well.
• Justice and Fairness: The Court emphasized that it would be unjust and arbitrary to deny the appellants the benefit of a regular pay scale, especially since they had been serving the State for a substantial period.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis (appointment on sanctioned posts, similarity with Ram Naresh Prajapati) and legal interpretation (application of the 1984 and 2016 circulars). The legal considerations slightly outweighed the factual aspects.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the various arguments and legal provisions, and arrived at the conclusion that the appellants were indeed entitled to a regular pay scale. The court emphasized that the factual distinctions made by the Division Bench of the High Court were not sufficient to deny the benefit to the appellants.

The Supreme Court stated, “The appointment orders make it clear that appellants were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts although on temporary basis.”

The Court further noted, “In our considered opinion, this factual difference is not enough to conclude that Appellants are differently situated from Ram Naresh Prajapati, because the appellants have sufficiently proven that they were employed on regular and sanctioned posts by their initial appointment orders.”

Additionally, the Court held, “It would be unjust, unfair and arbitrary if such benefit is not extended to the appellants who were appointed as temporary employees against vacant and sanctioned posts.”

Key Takeaways

• Part-time employees appointed against sanctioned posts under a special recruitment drive are entitled to a regular pay scale after completing three years of service.
• The designation of an employee as ‘part-time’ does not negate their right to a regular pay scale if they are appointed against sanctioned posts and fulfill other conditions.
• The benefit of government circulars regarding pay scales and regularization should be extended to employees who are similarly situated, irrespective of minor factual differences.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of justice and fairness in matters of employment and pay scales.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the order of the Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and extending the benefit of a regular pay scale to the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees appointed against sanctioned posts, even if designated as part-time or temporary, are entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale after completing three years of service if they fulfill the conditions stipulated in the relevant circulars. This judgment reinforces the principle that the substance of an appointment is more important than the designation. It clarifies that minor factual distinctions should not be used to deny benefits to similarly situated employees, and it emphasizes the importance of justice and fairness in employment matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh provides significant relief to part-time sweepers who were appointed under a special recruitment drive. The Court held that these employees, having been appointed against sanctioned posts and having completed three years of service, are entitled to a regular pay scale. The judgment underscores the importance of fair treatment and the application of government circulars to all similarly situated employees, irrespective of their initial designation.