A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeals examine entitlement to regular pay-scale by persons initially engaged as temporary/daily-wage employees under a Special Recruitment Drive, in light of the M.P. General Administration Department Circular No.192/601/1/S.R.D./84 dated 10.05.1984 (the 10.05.1984 Circular) and the M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 (the 1979 Rules). The appellants were appointed as Part time Swachchkar following a district-level Selection Committee’s recommendation and Collector-prescribed daily rates. Earlier High Court decisions most importantly Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of M.P. had held that temporary employees recruited through Selection Committees and paid at Collector’s rates for three years are entitled to the revised/regular pay-scale under the 10.05.1984 Circular.

The Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted relief to the present appellants on analogous grounds; the Division Bench reversed, distinguishing factual differences (no screening/upgrade to specific sanctioned designations in the appellants’ case). This Court analysed whether the factual distinction was material and whether appellants satisfied the conditions in the Circular and Rules. Holding that appellants were appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts albeit on temporary basis, and that they fulfilled Clause 6 of the Circular and the 1979 Rules, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench order and upheld the Single Judge’s grant of regular pay-scale (also referring to the 07.10.2016 circular regularising daily wagers). The judgment emphasises substance over form: designation as “part-time” does not defeat entitlement where appointment is against sanctioned vacancies following Selection Committee recommendation and Collector’s rate payment.

Keywords: regular pay-scale; temporary employment on sanctioned posts; 10.05.1984 Circular; 1979 Rules; Special Recruitment Drive; Collector’s rate; Ram Naresh Prajapati.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The short legal question addressed is whether employees engaged as temporary/daily-wage persons under a Special Recruitment Drive, chosen by a district-level Selection Committee and appointed by the Collector at prescribed daily/Collector rates against backlog vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC, acquire a legal right to the revised/regular pay-scale after performing service for the period stipulated in the State circular (three years). The factual background spans administrative measures taken by Madhya Pradesh to regularise contingency/work-charged staff. The 1979 Rules provided the regulatory framework for contingency paid employees; the 10.05.1984 Circular clarified that recruitment by Selection Committee with initial Collector-rate wages would, after three years, convert to temporary employee status under the revised pay-scale (appendices and eligibility steps to be satisfied).

The State later ran a Special Recruitment Drive in the 1990s and 2000s to fill backlog Class III/IV vacancies reserved for disadvantaged categories; selection lists were prepared and Collector-directed appointments were issued describing appointees as temporary and paying Collector’s daily rates. A body of High Court decisions, culminating in Ram Naresh Prajapati, afforded the benefit of the 1984 Circular to similarly placed temporary appointees who had been subject to screening/upgrade on sanctioned posts; the present batch of appellants relied on that precedent. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused the same relief to these appellants by distinguishing the upgrade/screening step as absent.

The Supreme Court here evaluates the legal significance of that factual distinction, analyses compliance with Clause 6 of the Circular and the 1979 Rules, and addresses whether subsequent administrative steps (like the 07.10.2016 circular regularising daily wagers) buttress appellants’ claim. The Court ultimately adopts a purposive approach: formal labels such as “part-time” cannot be used to deny substantive benefits where recruitment and appointment satisfy the circular’s conditions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Between 2006–2007 the Deputy Director of Veterinary Services, Umaria, pursuant to Collector directions and a Selection Committee constituted at district level, issued orders appointing 24 candidates including the nine appellants as Part time Swachchkar to fill backlog vacant posts. Each appointment expressly recorded selection on recommendation of the Selection Committee and engagement “temporarily at rates prescribed by the Collector”. The Special Recruitment Drive (initiated in 1996 with follow-on circulars in 1998, 2002, 2005) aimed to fill reserved Class III/IV vacancies; Selection Committees screened eligible registered candidates from District Employment Offices.

The appellants worked for substantial years and completed more than three years of service at Collector’s rates. Earlier, other part-time sweepers similarly appointed (e.g., petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati) obtained a Single Judge’s favourable order (21.01.2016) declaring entitlement to regular pay-scale under the 10.05.1984 Circular; the Division Bench in that matter affirmed the Single Judge (order dated 21.03.2017) and this Court dismissed the State’s SLP in Jan 2018. After receiving adverse administrative replies, the present appellants submitted representations seeking regular pay-scale; representations were rejected on 15.11.2016.

They filed writ petitions; the Single Judge (M.P. High Court) granted relief (12.07.2019) on parity with Ram Naresh Prajapati; the Division Bench reversed (02.12.2019), reasoning that unlike Ram Naresh Prajapati petitioners who had been screened/upgraded to specific sanctioned post designations, the present appellants continued as “part-time sweepers” and therefore did not satisfy circular criteria. Review was dismissed (17.01.2020). The appellants appealed to this Court, asserting that appointment orders themselves showed engagement against sanctioned vacancies via Selection Committee recommendation and Collector-rate payment and so satisfied Clause 6 and the 1979 Rules; they pointed to the 07.10.2016 circular which regularised daily wagers as additional support.

The State maintained that appellants were not appointed against sanctioned posts and lacked screening/upgradation and thus fell outside the 1984 Circular.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether employees appointed on temporary/daily-wage basis pursuant to a Selection Committee recommendation and paid at Collector’s rates, against backlog vacancies under Special Recruitment Drive, become entitled to regular pay-scale after completing the period specified in the 10.05.1984 Circular?
ii. Whether designation as “part-time” prevents entitlement where appointment orders indicate selection against sanctioned vacancies?
iii. Whether subsequent administrative circulars (notably 07.10.2016) impact the appellants’ entitlement and remedy?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that appellants were selected by a valid District Level Selection Committee and appointed by Collector’s order against vacant and sanctioned posts (though initially on temporary/daily-wage basis), and thus fall squarely within Clause 6 of the 10.05.1984 Circular and the 1979 Rules.
ii. They argued that designation as part-time Swachchkar is a label; substantive appointment against sanctioned vacancies and payment at Collector’s rate for three years creates a vested right to regular pay-scale.
iii. Reliance was placed on parity with Ram Naresh Prajapati decisions and on the 07.10.2016 circular which regularised daily wagers, to show the State itself recognised the need to extend regular benefits to such categories.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that appellants were engaged merely for necessity of work as part-time sweepers and no sanctioned post of part-time sweeper existed; consequently appellants were not covered under the 1984 Circular nor the 1979 Rules’ protective ambit.
ii. The State argued that the Ram Naresh Prajapati cohort had undergone subsequent screening/upgrade to specific sanctioned designations (Attendant, Bull-Attendant, Servant etc.), a material fact missing here; that factual difference justified denial of parity.
iii. The State further contended appellants were not daily-wage employees within the scope of the 07.10.2016 circular and hence could not claim regularisation on that ground.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 (rules framed under proviso to Article 309).
ii. G.A. Department Circular No.192/601/1/S.R.D./84 dated 10.05.1984 — Clause 6: recruitment as fixed-wage for initial three years then considered temporary employee and eligible for revised pay-scale after three years following Selection Committee recruitment and Collector appointment.
iii. G.A. Circular dated 14.09.1998 — payment of regular pay-scale to candidates appointed on regular posts under Special Recruitment Drive.
iv. G.A. Circular dated 07.10.2016 — regularisation of daily wager employees working continuously since 16.05.2007 and on 01.09.2016.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court affirmed the Single Judge’s reasoning and held that appellants satisfied the conditions of Clause 6 of the 10.05.1984 Circular and the 1979 Rules. The Court examined appointment orders and records and concluded that the appellants were appointed pursuant to Selection Committee recommendations and by Collector-directed orders to fill vacant and sanctioned posts reserved under the Special Recruitment Drive; appointments expressly recorded temporary status and payment at Collector’s rates. The Court held the Division Bench’s distinction that petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati were later upgraded to specific sanctioned designations while present appellants remained “part-time” to be insufficient.

The qualitative test is whether the initial appointment was against sanctioned vacancy following Selection Committee/Collector procedures and whether the statutory/administrative preconditions in the Circular were met. Because appellants had completed the prescribed three-year period while on Collector’s rates and satisfied rule/circular conditions, they acquired entitlement to revised pay-scale. The Court also relied on the State’s own subsequent administrative stance: the 07.10.2016 circular which extended benefit to daily wagers, reinforcing that withholding identical relief from appellants would be arbitrary and inequitable. Balancing precedent, statutory text, circulars and administrative practice, the Court restored the Single Judge order granting regular pay-scale with arrears, set aside the Division Bench order and allowed the appeals.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative legal principle: where the State’s circular prescribes that employees recruited by district-level Selection Committees and appointed by the Collector at Collector’s rates will be considered for the revised/regular pay-scale after three years, appointment against vacant and sanctioned posts (even if initially on temporary/daily wage and labelled “part-time”) confers entitlement once the conditions are satisfied. The Court applied a substance-over-form approach: the designation (part-time) is not determinative if the appointment orders and recruitment process demonstrate recruitment to sanctioned vacancies under the prescribed procedures.

The prior decision in Ram Naresh Prajapati stands approved as precedent on parity and interpretation of Clause 6. The 07.10.2016 circular serves as a contemporary administrative acknowledgment of the need to confer regular benefits to categories of daily/temporary workers, which informs equitable relief.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court’s observations underscore administrative fairness: administrative labels and ad hoc engagement practices cannot be used to defeat legitimate statutory or circularly created expectations. The Court also remarked on the State’s prolonged litigation and the equities favouring long-serving employees who have served the State for substantial years. While not laying down new legislative policy, the judgment signals judicial insistence on consistent administrative application of circulars and on not permitting states to narrowly construe eligibility in a way that produces arbitrariness.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Where appointments are made pursuant to a Selection Committee and Collector order, administrative authorities must maintain clear record of (a) vacancy being sanctioned, (b) Selection Committee recommendation, and (c) payment at Collector’s rates, to determine entitlement to the 1984 Circular.
ii. Administrative denials founded on mere designations (e.g., “part-time”) must be examined against the substantive content of appointment orders; labels cannot defeat rights accruing under circulars/rules.
iii. Where State circulars subsequently regularise daily wagers (e.g., 07.10.2016), authorities must apply them consistently and avoid arbitrary exclusions of similarly placed employees.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces doctrinal clarity: entitlement to pay-scale under an administrative circular depends on satisfaction of the circular’s substantive conditions and not on nominal labels. For administrative law and service jurisprudence, the judgment reiterates that circulars issued under delegated executive authority must be applied reasonably, consistently and in pari materia to similarly placed employees. Practically, the ruling benefits long-serving temporary/daily-wage employees engaged through formal Selection Committees and Collector-sanctioned processes by vindicating expectations created by state circulars.

The decision discourages formalistic, cramped readings of eligibility where appointment instruments and administrative practice point to recruitment against sanctioned backlogs. The opinion also places onus on state authorities to frame consistent record-keeping and screening processes to avoid litigation and inequitable outcomes. The approval of Ram Naresh Prajapati confirms the binding precedent and sends a clear message that parity and fairness will govern grants of regularisation.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 1303–1304 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, Jan. 31, 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 252.

2. Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of M.P., Writ Appeal No.197 of 2016 (M.P. High Court, Dec. 10, 2021) — (approved and applied).

b. Important Statutes / Administrative Instruments Referred

1. M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 (framed under proviso to Article 309).

2. G.A. Department Circular No.192/601/1/S.R.D./84 dated 10.05.1984 (Clause 6).

3. G.A. Circular dated 14.09.1998 (clarifying payment of regular pay-scale under Special Recruitment Drive).

4. G.A. Circular dated 07.10.2016 (regularisation of daily wager employees working since 16.05.2007 and on 01.09.2016).