Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karan Balmiki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
1 WP-31556-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31556 of 2023
KARAN BALMIKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to generate the Non-Regular Unique Code of the
petitioner forthwith and further direct them to pay the salary to the
petitioner as per the circular dated 06.05.2022 w.ef. May 2023
alongwith 18% interest.
(ii) That, any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in the
interest of justice."
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a part time Sweeper vide order
Annexure P-1 to sweep and clean an area of 1500 square meters i.e. 16140
square feet and as per area-wise rate applicable at that time, he was intimated
that he would be getting an amount of Rs.9,684/- per month. Thereafter,
there was increase by the State Government in the area-wise sweeping rates
2 WP-31556-2023
as evident from Annexure P-5 and the salary/wages of the petitioner went up
to Rs.16,700/-.
3. Thereafter, looking to the position that the petitioner is getting salary
more than a full time Sweeper, therefore, the Treasury took an objection and
it is intimated that as per Government policy, any employee getting more
than Rs.10,000/- as part timer shall be treated to be a full time employee and,
therefore, the Executive Engineer sought fresh approval in the matter of
petitioner.
4. The respondents had stopped the salary of the petitioner and this led the
petitioner to file this petition, but during the pendency of the petition, the
salary has been paid to the petitioner but now the respondents have reduced
the area allotted to the petitioner and in this manner, the salary/wages being
paid to the petitioner have been reduced.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the letter
Annexure P-3 issued by the then Chief Engineer, Sagar Zone, the work of
Sweepers is available in plenty in Sagar Zone and, therefore, the
respondents, only to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of full time daily
rated employee, have reduced the area allotted to the petitioner though he is
made to sweep more area.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on para 49 of the judgment
in the case of T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees
Association Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (2015) 9
SCC 62 to contend that the work of Sweepers is a perpetual and perennial
nature of the work. The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the
3 WP-31556-2023
Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 6427/2019 (Ushaben Joshi Vs. Union of
India) so also the judgment in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs .
Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union, (2024 SCC Online SC 270) passed
by the Supreme Court.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
(supra) has considered the position that some of the workmen who were also
performing work of perennial nature were not made part of the settlement
and the employer had failed to establish any distinction between two sets of
duties. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there is some
artificial distinction between two sets of workers and granted relief to the
workmen therein. The said case emanated from Industrial Tribunal and it was
established that two sets of the workmen were doing the same nature of work
and the work was of perennial nature and was not casual in nature.
8. The petitioner was undisputedly getting more than Rs.16,700/- per
month and when proposal was mooted by the Executive Engineer to convert
him to a full time Sweeper, then the respondents have simply reduced the
area allotted to the petitioner and as argued by the learned counsel for the
State, the petitioner can only seek wages for the area allotted to him as a part
time Sweeper. This assertion cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the
work of Sweeper is of perennial nature, as already noted above and full time
workers are also being engaged by the respondents. Furthermore, there is
work available for the petitioner to be engaged as full-time sweeper.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
pay wages to the petitioner as payable to a full time Sweeper at the notified
4 WP-31556-2023
minimum wages payable for such categories of full time daily rated
employees.
10. Let the appropriate action be taken and payment be made within 60
days.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
