Supreme Court of India
RAKESH KUMAR CHARMAKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 136
- Decided
- 30 January 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
Appellants are similarly situated as the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case and are therefore entitled to the regular pay‑scale under the 1984 circular (and the 2016 circular).
Summary
The appellants were appointed as temporary part‑time sweepers under a Special Recruitment Drive to fill vacant, sanctioned posts in the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department. They sought regular pay‑scale benefits under a 1984 circular that granted revised pay‑scale to temporary employees after three years of service, and also relied on a 2016 circular extending such benefits to daily wagers. The State argued that the appellants differed from the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case because they had never been upgraded to regular posts and no screening committee had examined their eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the factual distinction was immaterial, as the appellants were appointed to regular, sanctioned posts on a temporary basis and satisfied the conditions of the 1984 circular. It further noted that the 2016 circular reinforced the entitlement to regular pay‑scale for employees initially engaged as daily wagers. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and upheld the High Court Single Judge’s decision granting the regular pay‑scale to the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether employees appointed as temporary part‑time sweepers under a Special Recruitment Drive are entitled to regular pay‑scale under the 1984 circular.
- Whether the distinction of subsequent appointment to regular posts, as drawn by the Division Bench, defeats the appellants' claim for regular pay‑scale.
- Whether the 2016 circular extending regular‑pay benefits to daily wagers applies to the appellants.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Pay-scaleTemporary employment on regular postsEntitlement to regular payRevised pay-scaleSelection Committee at district levelTemporary employees on fixed wagesSpecial Recruitment DriveVacant postsPart time sweepersRam Naresh Prajapati’s caseSanctioned posts of Attendant, Bull-Attendant, ServantTemporary employeesRegular PayContingency paid employees recruitmentPart time SwachchkarCollector’s ratesPermanent contingency paid employeesSanctioned posts
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 252 : 2025 INSC 136
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors.
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1303-1304 of 2025)
31 January 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants were entitled to regular pay scale in light
of the circular dated 10.05.1984 issued by the State.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Pay-scale – Appointment as temporary
employees against vacant and sanctioned posts – Entitlement
to regular pay – Issuance of circular by the Department
conferring the benefit of revised pay-scale to employees
completing three years after initially being recruited by the
Selection Committee at district level and appointed by Collector
as temporary employees on fixed wages – Purpose was making
provision for temporary employees to avail benefit of regular
pay-scale – Department later issued circular that candidates
appointed on regular posts under the Special Recruitment
Drive would be paid regular pay-scale of the concerned post –
Appellants appointed under Special Recruitment Drive, against
the vacant posts of part time Swachchkar at rates prescribed
by the Collector – As regards, some of the part time sweepers
appointed under Special Recruitment Drive, the High Court in
Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case extended the benefit of regular
pay-scale to the temporary employees appointed under special
recruitment drive by Collector’s order, once they completed
three years time period after appointment – Appellants
submitted representations before the Competent Authority for
grant of regular pay-scale in light of Ram Naresh Prajapati’s
case, which were rejected – Writ petition thereagainst allowed
by the Single Judge of the High Court, however, the Division
Bench set aside the order – Correctness:
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 253
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Held: Appellants are similarly situated as the petitioners in Ram
Naresh Prajapati’s case – Petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati’s
case were also appointed under Special Recruitment Drive,
against the vacant posts, on temporary basis – Only factual
distinction upheld by the Division Bench in the impugned order,
is the subsequent appointment of those petitioners on sanctioned
posts of Attendant, Bull-Attendant, Servant, etc. – This factual
difference not enough to conclude that appellants are differently
situated from Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case, because the appellants
have sufficiently proven that they were employed on regular and
sanctioned posts by their initial appointment orders – Appellants
fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised
pay-scale – Appellants were appointed on regular posts even
though they were temporary – Provisions of the 1979 Rules and
the Circular dated 10.05.1984 both fulfilled by the appellants and
thus, entitled for regular pay scale – Division Bench of High Court
erred in distinguishing the case of Ram Naresh Prajapati’s case
from the present appeals – Additionally, Circular dated 07.10.2016
extended the benefit of regular pay-scale to daily wagers – 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 – Even if the State denies the benefit
of regular pay-scale after completing three years, the appellants
shall be benefitted from this Circular dated 07.10.2016 as they were
appointed initially as daily wagers at Collector’s rate – Single Judge
of the High Court rightly granted the benefit of regular pay-scale to
the appellants – Impugned order of the Division Bench set aside
and that of the Single Judge upheld – M.P. Veterinary Department
Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service
Rules, 1979. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18]
Case Law Cited
Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors. v. State of M.P, Writ Appeal No.
197 of 2016 dated 10.12.2021 by the Division Bench of M.P.
High Court – approved.
List of Acts
M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees
Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979.
254 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Pay-scale; Temporary employment on regular posts; Entitlement
to regular pay; Revised pay-scale; Selection Committee at
district level; Temporary employees on fixed wages; Special
Recruitment Drive; Vacant posts; Part time sweepers; Ram Naresh
Prajapati’s case; Sanctioned posts of Attendant, Bull-Attendant,
Servant; Temporary employees; Regular posts; Regular Pay;
Contingency paid employees recruitment; Part time Swachchkar;
Collector’s rates; Permanent contingency paid employees;
Sanctioned posts.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1303-1304
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2019 and 10.12.2021
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
WA No. 1486 of 2019 and RP No. 90 of 2020 respectively
Appearances for Parties
S.K Gangele, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priya Sharma, Arjun Sain, Ms. Sadhana
Sandhu AOR, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals assail the judgement passed by Division Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court on 02.12.2019 in Writ Appeal No.1486/19
whereby it allowed the appeal filed by Respondent (State of Madhya
Pradesh) and held that Appellants are not eligible to get regular
pay scale as per circular dated 10.05.1984. Further, the Division
Bench distinguished their case from that of Ram Naresh Prajapati
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 255
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
& Ors vs State of M.P1 and denied extending the benefit of regular
pay-scale to Appellants on the ground of similar facts. The appeal
also assails the order passed by Division Bench on 10.12.2021 in
Review Petition No. 90/2020 whereby it dismissed the review filed
by the appellants.
3. The brief facts leading to present appeal are summarised as follows:
3.1 On 11.06.1980, in exercise of powers under proviso of Article
309 of the Constitution of India, the Respondent State framed
the rules titled “M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979”
(“1979 Rules”). The M.P. General Administration department
issued a circular dated 10.05.1984 (No.192/601/1/S.R.D./84)
in reference to recruitment of employees getting salaries from
work-charged/contingency fund and in reference to giving them
revised pay-scale. Clause 6 of the Circular reads as:
“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.”
3.2 It also stated that employees of this service could be recruited
by a Selection Committee at district level. Effectively, the
circular conferred the benefit of revised pay-scale to employees
completing three years after initially being recruited by the
Selection Committee at district level and appointed by Collector
as temporary employees on fixed wages.
3.3 Additionally, the circular stated that members who did not receive
status of permanent employees by 01.04.1982, would receive
status of temporary employee, if they hold prescribed educational
qualification and necessary eligibilities, they should also be
1 Writ Appeal No. 197 of 2016
256 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
conferred the benefit of revised pay-scale. This helps to clarify
the purpose of the Circular as the State is making provision for
temporary employees to avail the benefit of regular pay-scale.
3.4 In 1996, the State of MP initiated a Special Recruitment
Drive to fill up Class III and Class IV posts lying vacant in
various departments, which were reserved for candidates from
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes. A Selection Committee was constituted. Appellant
No.6 Ramesh Prasad Prajapati was appointed by order dated
09.12.1996 under the special recruitment drive, issued by the
Deputy Director, Veterinary Hospital as per the selection list
sent by the office of Collector. The order stated that Appellant
No.6 along with four others was appointed temporarily on daily
wage rate prescribed by Collector.
3.5 On 14.09.1998, MP General Administration department issued
a circular stating that candidates appointed on regular posts
under the Special Recruitment Drive would be paid regular
pay-scale of the concerned post.
3.6 Since certain posts were still lying vacant, on 30.07.2005, the
MP General Administration Department extended the time
limit of Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the backlog
posts of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes, from 31.07.2005 to 31.12.2005. Earlier,
two memorandums were issued on 19.02.2002 and 24.03.2005
elaborating the guidelines for recruitment.
3.7 By the order of the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Umaria
dated 03.12.2005, a Selection Committee of four officers
was constituted for fulfilment of backlog posts of part time
Swachchkar, following the direction issued by the Collector for
appointment under Special Drive. The Selection Committee
was constituted as follows: The representative of Collector to
be the Chairman, Deputy Director Veterinary Services Umaria-
to be the Secretary (Member), Project Administrator BAIGA
Development Authority as Member and District Employment
Officer as Member.
3.8 By letter dated 15.12.2005, Deputy Director Veterinary Health
Services, District Umaria informed the District Employment
Officer that a total of eight posts of part time sweeper were
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 257
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
vacant in the District. The eligible candidates from Scheduled
Caste and Other Backward Classes category registered in
District Employment Office were called for interview for selection.
3.9 By the order of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services dated
08.02.2006, nine candidates were appointed on vacant posts
of “part time Swachchkar” on the basis of recommendation of
the Selection Committee, at rates prescribed by Collector. This
list included Appellant No. 1- Rakesh Kumar Charmakar and
Appellant No.5-Pardeep Kumar Prajapati. By a similar order
dated 24.02.2006, Appellant No. 2-Anand Kumar Patwa was
appointed to fill up the sanctioned and vacant post of sweeper. By
similar order dated 30.06.2006, six candidates were appointed.
This list included Appellant No.3- Anand Singh and Appellant
No.4- Ajit Sahu. By order dated 06.02.2007, three candidates
were appointed including Appellant No.8- Duryamani Patel and
Appellant No.9- Om Prakash Patel. By another order dated
06.02.2007, six candidates were appointed including Appellant
no.7- Jhallu Prasad Kol. By above mentioned four orders,
total twenty-four candidates were appointed in pursuance to
recommendation of Selection Committee with post mentioned
as ‘Part time Swachchkar’ to fill up the backlog posts. All four
orders state that the Appellants were appointed temporarily on
the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee, at
the rates prescribed by Collector. Thus, all nine petitioners were
engaged as Part time Swachchkar in the backlog vacancies
in Work Charged Contingency Paid Establishment by orders
dated 08.02.2006, 30.06.2006 and 06.02.2007.
4. Some of the part time sweepers including Ram Naresh Prajapati, who
were appointed under Special Recruitment Drive from 1993 to 1996
filed a petition before High Court for grant of regular pay scale with
effect from the date when they completed three years of service in
light of circular dated 10.05.1984. The Single Judge by order dated
21.01.2016, allowed the writ petition (W.P. No.9827/2012 titled as Ram
Naresh Prajapati vs State of MP) holding that it was in accordance
with circular dated 10.05.1984 that the petitioners therein get regular
pay-scale of sweeper after completing three years of service. The
High Court noted that after the initial appointment on part-time basis,
the petitioners were again appointed/upgraded as attendant, bull
attendant, servant, cattle attendant, watchman and sweeper. They
258 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
were appointed against the sanctioned posts. The High Court also
relied upon the order passed by the same High Court on 31.07.2012
in Writ Petition No.361/2010 wherein the petitioners were held to be
entitled for regular pay-scale in light of circular dated 10.05.1984.
Thus, the Single Judge held that petitioners in the writ petition before
him were also entitled to the benefit of regular pay-scale.
5. The State of MP filed appeal (Writ Appeal No.197 of 2016) against
the order dated 21.01.2016 passed in the petition of Ram Naresh
Prajapati. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by order
dated 21.03.2017 and upheld the order of the Single Judge. It
noted that petitioners were engaged as part time sweepers on
daily wages. Subsequently, they were subjected to scrutiny by the
Selection Committee and appointed at Collector’s rate by order
dated 30.06.2004. It held that under Clause-6 of the circular dated
10.05.1984, 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 revised pay scale. Thus, it concluded that the
view taken by the Single Judge in allowing the writ petition is correct.
Effectively, the High Court extended the benefit of regular pay-scale
to the temporary employees appointed under special recruitment
drive by Collector’s order, once they completed three years time
period after appointment.
6. The State of MP preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
39328/2017 before this Court. By order dated 10.01.2018, this court
dismissed the SLP with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- with remarks that State
of MP has burdened this Court for absolutely no rhyme or reason
and wasting money of the State.
7. Now, coming to the facts of present case, the appellants submitted
representations before the Competent Authority for grant of regular
pay-scale to the post of sweeper, in pursuance of the order dated
21.01.2016 passed by the High court in W.P.No.9827/2012 in Ram
Naresh Prajapati vs State of MP. These representations were rejected
by the Competent Authority on 15.11.2016.
8. Therefore, on 30.04.2018, the present appellants preferred a Writ
Petition before the High Court contending that they are eligible
to get regular pay scale under circular dated 10.05.1984. They
claimed that they were appointed under special recruitment drive in
pursuance to selection by the validly constituted Selection Committee
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 259
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
on a sanctioned post as per the Recruitment Rules. They cannot
be denied relief simply because they were designated as part time
sweepers. They deserved to be treated as regular employees either
through regularisation of their services after their screening before
the Selection Committee or declaration as permanent employees.
They also relied upon circular dated 07.10.2016 issued by General
Administration Department of the State in regard to regularisation
of daily wager employees as “permanent employees”. The circular
mentioned that these employees who are working on daily wage
basis since 16.05.2007 and working on 01.09.2016 as well, would
be eligible for regularisation as per their seniority and they would
be eligible to get benefit of regular pay scale. They stated that as
per the definition of permanent contingency paid employees, they
have acquired the status of permanent employees and deserve to
be given regular pay on completion of three years of service since
they have completed more than ten years of service.
9. The State of MP on the other hand contended that no post of part
time sweeper exists in the department and appellants were engaged
for the necessity of work. Petitioners are not covered under the
category of daily wage employees. They were not appointed against
any sanctioned post. Further, on the question of similarity with the
case of Ram Naresh Prajapati, the State submitted that for the
petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, a Screening Committee was
constituted by the State and after the Screening Committee scrutinized
the service conditions and eligibility criteria, they were appointed on
specific sanctioned posts such as Attendant, Bull Attendant, Servant,
etc. Also, the Deputy Director vide communication dt.16.02.2010
recommended in favour of the petitioners. Whereas in the present
case, no Screening Committee has been constituted to scrutinise
the case of appellants. They are not daily wage employees to be
covered in circular dated 07.10.2016. They stand on different footing
than that of the petitioner in Ram Naresh Prajapati.
10. The Single Judge of the High court allowed the Writ petition by
order dated 12.07.2019. It concluded that petitioners were recruited
pursuant to Special Recruitment Drive, against the vacant posts.
Drawing similarity with the facts in Ram Naresh Prajapati, the Single
Judge denied the claim of the State that appellants are differently
situated than that of the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati. It
denied the State’s argument that Appellants are not entitled to
260 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
benefit because they were appointed on temporary/contractual basis.
This argument was made by the State in Ram Naresh Prajapati as
well and the High Court had rejected it. Additionally, it noted that
State has extended the benefit of regular pay-scale to daily rated
employees by order dated 07.10.2016. It concluded that appellants
have successfully established that they are not part time sweepers
and they were appointed through selection procedure against vacant
posts. Therefore the Single Judge directed the State to grant the
benefit of regular pay-scale along with arrears after completion
of three years as per circular dated 10.05.1984, holding that the
present appellants are similarly situated qua Ram Naresh Prajapati
and hence entitled to get similar benefits.
11. The State preferred a Writ Appeal registered as W.A.No.1486/2019.
The Division Bench by the Impugned order dated 02.12.2019 allowed
the appeal, overturning the judgement of Single Judge. It rejected
the claim of appellants to get regular pay-scale as per circular dated
10.05.1984. According to it the present case is distinguishable from
the facts of Ram Naresh Prajapati, because in the case of Ram
Naresh Prajapati. the petitioners were initially appointed on part time
and then upgraded as attendant, bull attendant, cattle attendant,
watchman and sweeper between 2003 to 2005 and thereafter on
completion of three years of such regular service they were given
the benefit whereas the same is not the case with present appellants
who have continued as part time Swachchkar. Further, it stated that
Appellants do not fulfil the criteria laid down in the circular dated
10.05.1984, hence they are not entitled for regular pay-scale. This
judgement of the Division Bench is assailed in the present appeal.
Further, the Appellants filed a review petition against this order of
the Division Bench. The Review petition was also dismissed by the
High court by order dated 17.01.2020. This order has also been
assailed in the present appeals.
12. We have heard learned counsel from both sides and perused the
record.
13. It is clear that all the nine appellants were appointed under an order
issued by Deputy Director of Veterinary Sciences in compliance with
direction and order of Collector, on the ground of recommendation
of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the
vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 261
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
rates. The appointment orders make it clear that appellants were
appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts although on temporary
basis. Further, the appellants were appointed for posts reserved for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
under Special Recruitment Drive. This contradicts the argument of
the State that appellants were appointed on non-sanctioned posts,
only for necessity of work.
14. On the issue of whether present Appellants are similarity situated as
the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, we agree with the finding of
Single Judge in its order dated 12.07.2019. The petitioners in Ram
Naresh Prajapati were also appointed under Special Recruitment
Drive, against the vacant posts, on temporary basis. The only factual
distinction pointed out by the State and upheld by the Division
Bench in the impugned order, is the subsequent appointment of
those petitioners on sanctioned posts of Attendant, Bull-Attendant,
Servant, etc. after the scrutiny by the Committee. The State in its
Reply to the Writ Petition before High Court has itself stated that no
such Screening Committee has been constituted to scrutinise the
eligibility and qualification of the present appellants. The appellants
however state that they are ready for such scrutiny if the State
directs so. 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. They are thus covered under Clause 6 of
the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years
after being employed as ‘temporary’ employees on Collector’s wages,
with recommendation of the District Level Recruitment Committee. It
is thus clear that they fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular
to grant revised pay-scale. Their designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers
does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were
appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless. Appellants were
thus appointed on regular posts even though they were temporary.
The provisions of the 1979 Rules and Circular dated 10.05.1984 are
both fulfilled by the appellants and thus they are entitled for regular
pay-scale. The Division Bench of High Court erred in distinguishing
the case of Ram Naresh Prajapati from the present appeals.
15. Additionally, the Circular dated 07.10.2016 extended the benefit of
regular pay-scale to daily wagers. It would be unjust, unfair and
262 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
arbitrary if such benefit is not extended to the appellants who were
appointed as temporary employees against vacant and sanctioned
posts. Even if the State denies the benefit of regular pay-scale after
completing three years, the appellants shall be benefitted from this
Circular dated 07.10.2016 as they were appointed initially as daily
wagers at Collector’s rate.
16. The Appellants herein have been fighting this battle for regular pay-
scale since 2016. They have extended their service to the State for
substantial years. But more importantly they have proven that their
situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules. Thus,
it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale.
17. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the opinion that Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgement of
the Single Judge of High Court dated 12.07.2019. The Single Judge
rightly granted the benefit of regular pay-scale to the appellants.
18. We thus set aside the impugned order of Division Bench dated
02.12.2019 and uphold the order of Single Judge, allowing the writ
petition extending the benefit of regular pay-scale to the Appellants.
19. The appeals stand allowed as above.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Pay-scale"Sign in to search