The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that daily wage employees who were in service on 01.09.2016 and have completed over ten years of continuous service are entitled to permanent status under the Viniyamitikaran Scheme, irrespective of their job classification as Section Writers. This ruling clarifies the scope of the 2016 policy and reinforces the principle that long-serving non-regular employees cannot be excluded from regularization solely on technical grounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on whether Ajay Kumar Soni, a Section Writer employed on a daily wage basis, is eligible for permanent classification as a "Sthai Karmi" under the Government of Madhya Pradesh’s Viniyamitikaran Scheme, notified by Circular dated 07.10.2016. Despite having served continuously for over ten years and being in service on the critical cutoff date of 01.09.2016, his application for regularization was rejected on the ground that Section Writers were allegedly excluded from the scheme’s coverage.
Key Facts
- The appellant has been working as a Section Writer since at least 16.05.2007, continuing without interruption until the date of filing.
- He was still in service on 01.09.2016, the key eligibility date under the Viniyamitikaran Scheme.
- The appellant completed more than ten years of service by 2016, satisfying the threshold recognized by the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray.
- Anis Ahmad Khan, a Section Writer in Khargone, was initially granted Sthai Karmi status under the same scheme on 16.05.2018, but this was later cancelled by order dated 24.05.2018.
- The cancellation order and Circular dated 03.05.2018 were challenged by Anis Ahmad Khan in W.P. No. 12162/2018 and set aside by the High Court on 21.11.2019.
- The State’s appeal against this order (W.A. No. 441/2022) was dismissed on 16.06.2022, and the Supreme Court refused to interfere by dismissing SLP (Civil) No. 21331-21332/2022 on 28.11.2022.
- The appellant’s writ petition (W.P. No. 19319/2023) was dismissed by the Single Judge on 11.08.2023 on the ground that Section Writers did not meet the minimum qualification under Clause 1.8 of the Circular.
Procedural History
- 16.05.2007: Appellant began service as a daily wage Section Writer.
- 07.10.2016: Viniyamitikaran Scheme notified via Circular, covering daily wage employees in service on 16.05.2007 and still in service on 01.09.2016.
- 24.05.2018: Order issued cancelling Sthai Karmi status of Anis Ahmad Khan.
- 21.11.2019: High Court allowed W.P. No. 12162/2018, restoring Anis Ahmad Khan’s status.
- 16.06.2022: High Court dismissed W.A. No. 441/2022 filed by the State against the 2019 order.
- 28.11.2022: Supreme Court dismissed SLPs challenging the 2019 order.
- 11.08.2023: Single Judge dismissed W.P. No. 19319/2023 filed by the appellant.
- 20.04.2026: Writ Appeal No. 2081/2024 reserved for judgment.
- 05.05.2026: Judgment pronounced allowing the appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) declaration of his entitlement to permanent status as "Sthai Karmi" under the 07.10.2016 Circular; (2) grant of consequential benefits including pay revision, arrears, seniority, and pension benefits; and (3) interest on arrears from the date of entitlement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a daily wage employee who was in service on 01.09.2016 and had completed over ten years of service is excluded from the Viniyamitikaran Scheme merely because his position as a Section Writer was not explicitly listed in the scheme’s categories.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the Viniyamitikaran Scheme, as per Clause 1.8 of the 07.10.2016 Circular, explicitly covers three categories of daily wage employees: (i) those in service on 16.05.2007, (ii) those in service on 01.09.2016, and (iii) those appointed after 16.05.2007 with competent authority approval. The appellant satisfied the second category. He relied on Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436, which held that long-serving daily wage employees must be regularized irrespective of job titles. He further contended that the High Court’s prior decision in W.P. No. 12162/2018, which granted Sthai Karmi status to a Section Writer, was binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.
For the Respondent
The State contended that Clause 1.8 of the Circular implicitly restricted eligibility to unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers in defined pay scales, and that Section Writers did not fall within these categories. It argued that the appellant’s role was administrative and not covered by the scheme’s intent, and that the Single Judge’s restrictive interpretation was legally sound. It also relied on the absence of explicit inclusion of Section Writers in the scheme’s annexures.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s narrow interpretation of Clause 1.8, emphasizing that the Circular’s language was inclusive and not restrictive. The provision did not limit eligibility by job title or skill classification but by two objective criteria: continuous service on 16.05.2007 and continued service on 01.09.2016. The Court held that the appellant clearly met the second criterion and had served for over a decade.
"The scheme was designed to regularize long-serving daily wage employees, and the exclusion of Section Writers on the basis of job description is contrary to the spirit and object of the policy."
The Court noted that the State had already recognized the entitlement of a Section Writer (Anis Ahmad Khan) under the same scheme, and its subsequent attempt to cancel that benefit was set aside by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. To deny the appellant the same benefit on identical facts would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court further observed that the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat had directed regularization of all daily wage employees with ten or more years of service, irrespective of their designation. The State’s attempt to carve out exceptions based on job titles was therefore unsustainable.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the order dated 11.08.2023 of the Single Judge. The State is directed to grant permanent status as "Sthai Karmi" to the appellant under the Viniyamitikaran Scheme dated 07.10.2016 within 60 days. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including pay revision, arrears, seniority, and pension benefits from the date of his eligibility under the scheme. Interest on arrears shall be calculated at 6% per annum from 01.09.2016 until actual payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularization Cannot Be Denied on Job Title Alone
- Practitioners representing long-serving daily wage employees must argue that eligibility under regularization schemes is determined by service duration and cutoff dates, not by job titles or departmental classifications.
- Any attempt to exclude employees based on perceived "administrative" or "non-skilled" roles is legally untenable if the scheme’s language is objective.
Precedents Bind Subsequent Denials
- Where a court has granted regularization to an employee under identical factual circumstances, subsequent denials to similarly situated employees violate the doctrine of equality.
- Writ petitions challenging such denials should cite prior favorable orders as binding precedent under Article 14.
Tenure Is the Decisive Factor
- Employees with over ten years of continuous service as of any cutoff date specified in a regularization policy are entitled to permanent status, regardless of whether their designation is listed in annexures.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove a rational classification, which it cannot do if the scheme’s criteria are purely temporal.
