#daily wager

Bombay High Court reaffirms that daily wagers must strictly prove 240 days of continuous work in a calendar year with documentary evidence like muster rolls to claim permanency benefits under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996. The ruling underscores the burden of proof on workers and limits arbitrary permanency claims in public employment.

Allahabad High Court directs the Forest Department to pay daily wagers a minimum wage of Rs. 18,000 per month under the 7th Pay Commission, with arrears dating back to April 2018, relying on precedents in Sabha Shankar Dube and Mohan Swaroop. The ruling underscores the binding nature of judicial directives on minimum wage compliance for contractual workers in government service.

Allahabad HC rules that daily wagers with continuous service since 2004 are entitled to a minimum pay scale of Rs. 18,000/month under the Office Memo dated 24.09.2024, directing payment within eight weeks. The judgment underscores that administrative breaks do not negate entitlement to minimum wages for long-serving daily wagers.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that 23 years of uninterrupted daily wage service in a regular vacancy qualifies as 'continuous service' under Rule 2(a)(iii) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants Rules, 1974, entitling dependants to compassionate appointment. The judgment underscores that long-term daily wagers cannot be denied benefits merely due to lack of formal appointment, directing reconsideration for engagement even on contractual basis.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that daily wager employees possess no inherent right to continue service beyond the age of 55 years unless a specific rule or policy provides otherwise. The court set aside a Labour Court order extending service to 62 years, reinforcing that retirement age for daily wagers is governed by prevailing circulars and not judicial discretion.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, ruled that superannuation does not bar consideration of a daily wager's claim for regularization or benefits under state circulars, even if adjudication is pending. The court directed authorities to decide the petitioner's claim on merits post-resolution of related litigation, reinforcing that retirement does not nullify entitlements accrued during service.