The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that continuous service as a daily wager, even without formal regularization, entitles an employee to the minimum pay scale prescribed by government office memoranda. This ruling clarifies that statutory regularization rules are not the sole gateway to fair compensation when service continuity is established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a daily wage labourer, sought enforcement of the minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000 per month under the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations, alleging that he had been receiving only Rs. 5,500 per month since 2018 despite continuous service since 2004. He contended that his prolonged and uninterrupted work warranted equitable pay adjustment, irrespective of formal regularization.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged as an Additional Labour on a daily wage basis in the year 2004
- He has been working continuously since then, with only artificial breaks noted in the Department’s work-chart
- His monthly remuneration remained at Rs. 5,500 from 2018 until the filing of the petition
- The petitioner was not regularized under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 or the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages, Work Charge, or Contract in Government Departments (Group C & D Posts) Rules, 2016
- The State admitted through its counsel that the petitioner’s service was continuous and that he was entitled to the minimum pay scale under Office Memo dated 24.09.2024
Procedural History
- 2004: Petitioner commenced work as daily wage labourer
- 2018: Monthly pay fixed at Rs. 5,500 despite inflation and Pay Commission recommendations
- 2024: Office Memo dated 24.09.2024 issued prescribing minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000/month for continuous daily wagers
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 13057 of 2024 filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking arrears and prospective payment of Rs. 18,000/month
- 15.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing payment of minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000 per month in place of Rs. 5,500
- Payment of arrears from 2018 to date
- Interest on arrears
- Continuation of Rs. 18,000/month pay from the date of direction
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a daily wage worker with continuous service since 2004, though not formally regularized under statutory rules, is entitled to the minimum pay scale prescribed by a government office memorandum issued in 2024.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through counsel, argued that his uninterrupted service for over two decades, coupled with the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations, created a legitimate expectation of fair compensation. He contended that denial of the minimum pay scale despite continuous work amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, conceded that the petitioner’s service was continuous as per the Department’s work-chart and that he was not entitled to regularization under the 2001 or 2016 Rules. However, the State acknowledged that the Office Memo dated 24.09.2024 explicitly extended the minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000/month to all such continuous daily wagers, and that the petitioner had not yet received this benefit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the State’s own admission regarding the petitioner’s continuous service and the issuance of the Office Memo dated 24.09.2024. It held that the State could not deny the benefit of its own policy directive to a worker who met its criteria. The Court emphasized that while regularization under statutory rules is a separate process, entitlement to minimum pay scale under an administrative order does not depend on regularization.
"The petitioner has been working continuously since 2004, and the State itself has recognized through its Office Memo dated 24.09.2024 that such continuous service warrants the minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000 per month. Denial of this benefit, despite admission of service continuity, would be contrary to the principles of equity and fair play."
The Court rejected the notion that only regularized employees are entitled to revised pay scales, noting that the Office Memo was framed precisely to address the plight of long-serving daily wagers. It further held that the petitioner’s claim for arrears from 2018 was not maintainable because the Office Memo, which created the entitlement, was issued only on 24.09.2024. Therefore, the right to the revised pay scale could only arise from that date.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed in part. The Court directed the respondents to grant the minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000 per month to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.09.2024 within eight weeks from the date of judgment. The petitioner shall continue to receive this pay scale on a monthly basis thereafter. No arrears or interest shall be payable for the period prior to 24.09.2024. The case was de-linked from other matters.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuous Service Triggers Administrative Entitlement
- Practitioners representing daily wagers must now focus on proving uninterrupted service, not just regularization status
- Government office memoranda prescribing pay scales for continuous workers create enforceable rights, even without statutory regularization
- Claims for arrears must be tied to the effective date of the relevant administrative order, not the date of initial employment
Pay Scales Are Not Dependent on Regularization
- The judgment decouples pay entitlement from formal regularization under Rules 2001 or 2016
- Employers cannot withhold revised pay scales on grounds of non-regularization if the worker satisfies the criteria in a valid administrative order
- This principle applies to all categories of daily wagers, work-charged, and contract employees covered by similar memoranda
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Departments must act promptly on administrative directives; delays in implementation are now legally actionable
- The eight-week compliance deadline sets a precedent for enforcement timelines in similar service matters
- Failure to comply may invite contempt proceedings or further writ relief
