Entitlement to Regular Pay Scale for Part-Time Employees Appointed on Sanctioned Posts: A New Judicial Standard

1. Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 136), delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale. The core issue relates to whether part-time sweepers, appointed under a Special Recruitment Drive and serving on sanctioned posts at collector-prescribed wages, are entitled to a regular pay scale under a specific government circular.

The dispute originated when the appellants (part-time sweepers) contested the refusal of the State of Madhya Pradesh to extend them a regular pay scale in line with the State’s 1984 Circular. The High Court’s Division Bench had denied them the benefit of this Circular, distinguishing their case from a previous decision (Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of M.P.). The Supreme Court ultimately held in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment and reinforcing the principle that once an individual is appointed on a sanctioned post, even if initially engaged as part-time, he or she is entitled to a regular pay scale after satisfying stipulated criteria.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the Division Bench’s ruling that had denied part-time employees regular wages under the 1984 Circular. Significantly, the Court reasoned that the appellants had been appointed against sanctioned (albeit part-time) posts under the Special Recruitment Drive, having completed the required period of service prescribed in the Circular (i.e., three years of temporary service). The appellants thus became eligible for regularization and were entitled to the pay scale of permanent employees.

Notably, the Court found the High Court’s earlier decision (Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of M.P.) comparable to the appellants’ circumstances, rejecting the Division Bench’s attempt to distinguish the two scenarios based on factual nuances. The judgment directs the State to grant the appellants the benefits of a regular pay scale from the time they completed the required three years of service, while also acknowledging that they have served the State for extended durations.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

A pivotal precedent in this litigation is Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Appeal No.197 of 2016). In that matter, the High Court recognized the eligibility of employees, who commenced as part-time workers but completed three years of service on sanctioned posts, to claim a regular pay scale under the Circular dated May 10, 1984. The State of Madhya Pradesh unsuccessfully challenged that decision, even incurring costs imposed by the Supreme Court for filing a frivolous appeal.

The Court in the present case leveraged the Ram Naresh ruling to emphasize that factual similarities between that case and the appellants’ situation are sufficient to grant them the same benefit. The only major attempt by the State to differentiate from Ram Naresh was the assertion that the appellants here were never “upgraded” from part-time to fully sanctioned posts. However, the Supreme Court held that the documented appointment orders showed the appellants were indeed placed on sanctioned posts from the outset, though designated part-time.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds from a careful reading of the 1979 Rules, the 1984 Circular, and the subsequent 2016 Circular:

  • 1979 Rules: The Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979, provided the legal underpinnings for appointing personnel on contingency-paid establishments.
  • 1984 Circular (No.192/601/1/S.R.D./84): Clause 6 of this Circular states that employees appointed on a fixed wage basis (i.e., Collector’s rate) for three years and completing the prescribed selection process are entitled to a temporary status leading to eligibility for a revised (regular) pay scale.
  • 2016 Circular (dated 07.10.2016): Extended regular pay scale benefits to daily wage employees who had served since May 2007. The Court observed that these broader benefits also supported the appellants’ claim to regular wages.

The crux of the Supreme Court’s conclusion is that the appellants’ appointments under a Special Recruitment Drive, their screening by a duly constituted Selection Committee, and the recognized vacancy on sanctioned posts collectively established their entitlement to regular salaries. Their designation as “part-time” was primarily formal rather than substantive.

3.3 Impact

This judgment clarifies and strengthens the principle that once individuals fulfill the necessary criteria of (a) sanctioned posts, (b) mandatory selection processes, and (c) a specified duration of continuous service (three years under the relevant circular), they have a right to a regular pay scale. It will likely streamline the resolution of similar disputes involving part-time or contingency-paid employees in various departments across Indian states. As a result, states may need to review any distinctions between “part-time” and “full-time” designations if both categories occupy sanctioned posts and meet the minimum service threshold stipulated in government circulars.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Part-Time” vs. “Sanctioned Post”: An individual may be called a “part-time” hire but still be placed on a post that formally exists in the government’s authorized establishment. This difference matters greatly for determining whether an employee is truly on a casual or an established track.

Entitlement to Regular Pay Scale: Under Clause 6 of the 1984 Circular, once appointees have completed their initial three-year period of service at fixed wages (often daily wages), but on sanctioned posts, they become “temporary employees” eligible for revised pay scales. Having served that period under an authorized selection process, these employees often become indistinguishable from those who commenced on full pay.

Regularisation vs. Permanent Status: The 2016 Circular referencing daily wage employees clarifies that if the employee is already in government service (in some capacity) and the appointment is not purely ad hoc or casual, the individual may accrue further rights, including regularisation, subject to meeting tenure and selection standards.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reinforces that already existing government circulars and rules confer a legitimate expectation of regular pay scales to part-time employees serving on sanctioned posts after a duly prescribed probationary or temporary service period. It enshrines the principle that nomenclature alone (such as “part-time”) cannot obscure the true nature of an individual’s service.

As a broader legal takeaway, the Court signals that states must ensure that employees who fulfill the conditions laid out in official circulars, particularly where appointments are to sanctioned posts through legally constituted committees, should be granted the benefits promised by those regulations. Equity and fairness in public employment remain paramount, and judgments such as this one expand and clarify the scope of entitlement to a regular pay scale for contingency-paid employees who meet prescribed service requirements.