Part-time employees cannot be regularised without a sanctioned post and proper recruitment process, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, a part time Safaikarmi has been allowed with a direction to regularise his services.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would argue that the direction for regularisation in service, without there being any post and without there being any process of selection in accordance with the recruitment rules through an open competitive examination and any procedure known to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. He would further submit that Respondent No.1 is a part time employee, therefore, in any case, no direction for regularisation could be issued in respect of a part time employee.

4. As far as grant of minimum pay of the pay scale admissible to the post of Class IV Employee is concerned, learned Addition Advocate General would argue that minimum pay of the pay scale of Class IV Employee may not be allowed to Respondent No. 1 because he has been working as a part time employee, who cannot be granted minimum pay of the pay scale. He would submit that in any case, as per existing notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages is payable to Respondent No. 1.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that direction for regularisation of services of Respondent No. 1, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148, is misplaced in law because that decision only deals with the issue of equal pay for equal work and on that basis, relief of regularisation could not be granted.

6. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. A.S. Pillai and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 448; State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5689-5690 of 2021 decided on 07.10.2021.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 would submit that Respondent No. 1 has been working as a part time Safaikarmi in the services of the Panchayat Samiti Bansoor since 1997. He would submit that Respondent No. 1 is being continued in the service on most exploitative terms and conditions. Even after having worked for last more than three decades, Respondent No. 1 has not accorded any permanent status, nor regular pay is being paid to him which is otherwise being paid to regular Class IV Employees. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (supra), learned counsel would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in any case, has upheld the claim of equal pay for equal work. He would submit that Respondent No. 1 is working as Safaikarmi in the services of the Panchayat Samiti Bansoor, which can be treated to be service in the last rung, i.e. Class IV Employee and, therefore, in any case, he is entitled to minimum pay of the pay scale applicable to the posts of Class IV Employee. Though no document is on record, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, during the course of hearing, submitted that many daily wages employees, who were declared surplus, were regularised from time to time in the year 2010, therefore, on parity also, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to direction for regularisation.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 has been working as Safaikarmi since 1997. Further, from the pleadings of the parties and various documents, which have been placed on record, we find that engagement of Respondent No. 1 is as a part time employee and he has been working in this