‘Can’t deny livelihood’: Madhya Pradesh High Court bats for longtime contract workers, orders minimum pay scale

The Madhya Pradesh High Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by workers of a state department seeking directions to the authorities to extend the benefit of classification and minimum pay scale under the policy dated October 7, 2016.

Court’s observations

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court found that though the petitioners were employed on a contract basis for a limited term, their contract had been extended by the state government from time to time.
• It was further noted that the petitioners have been working for about 16 years or more with the state government.
• There is no rational basis to deny the benefit of classification under the state’s policy to ‘contract’, ‘outsourced’, and ‘part-time’ workers if they have been continuously engaged for more than 10 years, the Madhya Pradesh High Court pointed out.
• It was further observed that the petitioners were denied benefits solely because they were not classified as ‘skilled’, ‘semi-skilled’, or ‘unskilled’ workers under the policy, despite long service.

• The court said the policy dated October 7, 2016, was framed to extend benefits to employees who could not be regularised due to a lack of sanctioned posts, by granting them classification and a minimum pay scale, so that they will have decent living conditions.
• Justice Dhagat described the 2016 circular as a “master stroke” consistent with constitutional principles, particularly those relating to social and economic justice and the right to livelihood.
• The court held that the petitioners ought to have been granted the benefit of classification under the policy and paid minimum wages corresponding to their posts, similar to daily wagers.
• Accordingly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petitions and directed the authorities to classify the petitioners under the 2016 policy and extend all consequential benefits.

16 years of ‘temporary’ service

• It was placed on record before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the petitioners were engaged on a contract basis by an order of July 7, 2009. Consequently, their appointment orders were issued on July 30, 2009.
• Thereafter, the services of petitioners were continued by the said department, and they are still working there.
• It was submitted by the representative of the petitioner, advocate Om Prakash Dwivedi, that the state government formulated the policy for classifying employees as ‘permanent’ and granting them a minimum of the pay scale admissible to their posts.
• The petitioner claimed that the said benefit may also be granted to them, pointing to the violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution.
• The petitioners also said that the department is exploiting the petitioners by not classifying them and paying them less salary.

‘No benefit for contractual workers’

• On the contrary, government advocate Kamal Singh Baghel submitted that the Madhya Pradesh government formulated a policy on October 7, 2016, which aimed at providing benefits to daily wagers who could not be regularised in service.
• He added that as per policy, daily wagers are to be classified as ‘skilled’, ‘semi-skilled’ and unskilled’ workers.
• Baghel pointed out that the daily wagers, who have been working with the department for the last 10 years, are to be given the benefit.
• He then highlighted that the said benefit is not available to those workers who are engaged on a contract basis, are outsourced or are employed temporarily.
• It was further submitted that, considering the conditions, the benefit of classification has not been extended to petitioners.
• He emphasised that there is no illegality in the orders passed by said authorities, and it does not call for interference by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.