The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of daily-wage skilled workers who served the Gujarat Government for decades and were denied the annual increment that became due immediately after their retirement. The Court held that their status as daily-wage workers could not, by itself, be used to deny the increment when they had been treated as permanent employees for several service and retirement benefits.
Background
The case arose from a dispute concerning employees of the Gujarat Irrigation Department who retired on June 30 in different years. They claimed the increment that fell due on July 1, after completion of the relevant year of service.
A Gujarat High Court Judge had earlier accepted their claim, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Director (Administration and Human Resources), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani. The Division Bench later overturned that decision after the State argued that the workers were daily wagers and therefore could not claim an increment available to regular employees.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had worked for more than 30 years. It also examined the Gujarat Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, under which eligible daily-wage skilled workers were treated as permanent employees and were granted benefits including pay-scale, allowances, pension and retiral benefits.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva rejected the State’s argument that the workers could be denied the increment merely because they were originally classified as daily wagers.
The Court observed:
“If that be so, as they were treated as permanent employees for the purpose of payscale and allowances, pension, retirement benefits, etc., the contention advanced before the Division Bench of the High Court that they were not entitled to grant of the increment only on the ground that they were daily wagers cannot be countenanced.”
The Court further held that the appellants, having filed their writ petition in 2022, were covered by the modified directions governing the benefit of the increment and consequential pension.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It directed the authorities to examine the individual retirement dates, calculate the amounts payable in accordance with the applicable directions, and release the dues within 30 days.
The Court further ordered that if the authorities failed to make payment within that period, interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default until payment.
The benefit was also extended to the proforma respondents falling within the applicable category.
