Court emphasizes legal requirements for public employment appointments and regularization, void appointments without authority.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that public employment must adhere to constitutional and statutory requirements. Regularization does not equate to appointment, and recruitment through regularization is not legally valid. The Court stressed that appointments must align with statutory rules, and regularization does not confer permanency. It was clarified that appointment without authority or in violation of mandatory provisions is void. The judgment underscored the necessity of compliance with statutory rules in appointments and clarified that entitlement to pay scale is dependent on holding a sanctioned post. The Court directed the State to expedite filling vacant posts and consider the respondents' cases alongside other eligible candidates, suggesting relaxation of age bars for the respondents who had worked with the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
Entitlement of daily wage workers to claim minimum pay scale and allowances for the post they are working in.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether daily wage workers are entitled to claim the minimum pay scale and applicable allowances for the post they are working in. The workers were appointed on daily wages without compliance with statutory rules, advertisement, or notification of vacancies. The respondents sought regularisation of their services before the Madhya Pradesh State Tribunal, praying for payment of pay scale for Assistant Grade Post Regular and direction for regularisation. The Tribunal directed payment of wages at the minimum of the pay scale of the post they were working in, based on a previous order. However, the appellant contended that as the respondents were not engaged on any vacant post, payment of salary on a regular scale of pay was impermissible in law, citing Recruitment Rules for Assistant Grade III posts.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The appellant argued that the respondents did not hold a post and therefore were not entitled to claim salary on a regular scale of pay. On the other hand, the respondents claimed entitlement to the same pay scale as Assistant Grade III holders based on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The Supreme Court emphasized that public employment offered by a State must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including appointments made in accordance with existing rules. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment, and recruitment through regularisation is not legally sanctioned.

The Court referred to precedents to establish that appointment must be made in terms of statutory rules, and regularisation does not confer permanency. It was highlighted that a person appointed by a State following Recruitment Rules enjoys a status, and a post must be created or sanctioned before filling it. The Court cited cases to emphasize that appointment made without authority or in violation of mandatory provisions is void and cannot confer permanent employee status. The judgment also defined the term "status" in legal context and clarified that workmen of a statutory canteen are considered workmen of the establishment only for specific purposes, not all.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the condition that the State should expedite filling up vacant posts, and the cases of the respondents may be considered along with other eligible candidates. The Court suggested relaxing age bar for the respondents who had worked with the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory rules in appointments and clarified that entitlement to pay scale is contingent upon holding a sanctioned post.

---