Back
Denied Minimum Pay to 23-Year Part-Time Worker; High Court Grants Relief
The has dismissed a petition by the challenging a order that granted the of a to a , Nanu Ram, who had worked for 23 years at . The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that the Administration could not deny the benefit to a when it had already extended the same to almost all similarly situated part-time workers.
The Background: A 23-Year Wait for Parity
Nanu Ram worked as a for six hours a day, while regular employees worked eight hours. Despite performing essential duties, he was paid at for over two decades. He approached the claiming the attached to his post. The Tribunal allowed his claim in , noting that other similarly situated part-time employees had already received the benefit and continued to receive it. The challenged this, arguing that the 's judgment in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) disallowed such benefit for part-time workers.
Arguments: A Tale of Two Sets of Employees
The petitioners' counsel fairly conceded that the benefit had been continued in Ilmo Devi for the employees in that case, but argued it might not be admissible to the respondent. They contended that the Tribunal should have examined this question rather than relying on the fact that other employees had already received the benefit.
The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, pointed out that the Tribunal had already granted the same benefit to other part-time Class-IV employees and they still receive it. The lone respondent was being denied what his colleagues already enjoyed.
Legal Analysis: The Principle of Equal Treatment
The court observed that the benefit of was extended in light of
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh
(2013), which held that are entitled to . In
Ilmo Devi
, while the
observed that part-time workers cannot claim parity with Group-D posts, it did not quash the direction for the employees before it. The court emphasized the principle of equal treatment:
"
cannot be treated differently without a
."
Since almost all part-time employees had received the benefit, denying it to the respondent was unjust.
The court also considered subsequent developments in the law. The High Court had directed of part-time employees with over 25 years of service, upheld by the in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024). The in Jaggo criticized the misapplication of Uma Devi and urged government departments to provide . Once part-time service is considered for , refusing on the ground of part-time work must be reconsidered. The court further relied on Shripal v. (2025) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), where part-time service was considered for even without regular posts or qualifications.
Key Observations
" cannot be treated differently without a ."(Paragraph 9)
"almost all employees working on a part-time basis have been granted the benefit of a , except the respondent herein."(Paragraph 10)
"the grant of the benefit of the to an employee who has rendered more than is warranted."(Paragraph 13)
The Verdict: Relief for the Lone Worker
The court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. It dismissed the writ petition, effectively granting Nanu Ram the . The judgment reinforces the principle that government departments cannot selectively deny benefits to long-serving part-time employees while extending them to others in the same class. The decision also highlights the evolving legal landscape where part-time service is increasingly recognized for and .
