Meghalaya High Court: No Regularisation for Part-Time Sweepers, But Overtime Inquiry Ordered

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Gurdeep Singh & Ors. (High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong)

WA No. 24 of 2024

Date: 27th March 2025

Key Takeaways

• No Right to Regularisation: The court confirmed that part-time, ad hoc, and temporary workers appointed against non-sanctioned posts cannot claim regularisation of their services.
• Minimum Wages Not Automatically Granted: The court found it improper to grant minimum wages for full-day work without clear evidence or a specific claim.
• Overtime Inquiry Ordered: The court directed NEEPCO to investigate if the workers actually worked more than their contracted three hours per day, and if so, to pay overtime at government-approved rates.
• Transparency in Reporting: The court emphasized that any media reporting must mention the names of the judges on the bench for transparency.

Issue

Do part-time, ad hoc sweepers and cleaners working for NEEPCO have a right to regularisation and minimum wages for full-day work, despite being appointed on a temporary, contractual basis against non-sanctioned posts?

Facts

• Parties: The appellants are NEEPCO and its Chairman/Managing Director. The respondents are 14 (later 12) part-time cleaners and sweepers.
• Employment History: The workers were engaged on a contractual, ad hoc basis, with the earliest appointment in 1985 and the latest in 2008.
• Nature of Work: They were required to work three hours per day, and their posts were not officially sanctioned.
• Legal Action: The workers filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of their services.
• Single Judge’s Decision: The single judge dismissed their claim for regularisation but directed NEEPCO to pay them minimum wages for full-day work, including arrears from April 19, 2022.

Arguments

Appellants (NEEPCO)

• The workers were part-time, temporary, and ad hoc, working only three hours a day.
• Their posts were not sanctioned, so they had no right to regularisation.
• The single judge’s direction to pay minimum wages for full-day work was flawed because:
• There was no evidence or pleading that they worked full days.
• The workers did not claim overtime or compensation for extra hours in their petition.

Respondents (Workers)

• They claimed to have worked for the entire working day and sought regularisation and minimum wages accordingly.

Key Legal Precedents

Note: The judgment, as provided, does not explicitly cite any previous case law names or specific statutory sections/rules. The court’s reasoning is based on general principles regarding regularisation and contractual employment in public service, but no verbatim case law names or section/rule numbers are mentioned in the connected document.

Judgement

• Regularisation Denied: The court upheld the single judge’s decision that the workers, being part-time, ad hoc, and temporary appointees against non-sanctioned posts, had no right to regularisation.
• Minimum Wages Direction Set Aside: The court found that the direction to pay minimum wages for full-day work was not justified, as there was no evidence or claim that the workers actually worked full days.
• Overtime Inquiry Ordered: The court directed NEEPCO to appoint a senior officer to review attendance records and determine if the workers worked more than three hours per day. If so, they must be paid overtime at the central government-approved rate for regular employees of this class, from the date of the writ petition until the present.
• Order Modified: The single judge’s order was modified to remove the blanket minimum wage direction and replace it with the overtime inquiry and payment order.
• Appeal Disposed: The appeal was disposed of with these modifications.

FAQs

Q1: Did the workers get regularised?

No, the court confirmed that part-time, ad hoc, and temporary workers appointed against non-sanctioned posts are not entitled to regularisation.

Q2: Will the workers get minimum wages for full-day work?

Not automatically. The court set aside the direction to pay minimum wages for full-day work, as there was no evidence or claim that the workers worked full days.

Q3: What happens next for the workers?

NEEPCO must conduct an inquiry into the actual hours worked by each worker. If any worked more than three hours per day, they are entitled to overtime pay at the government-approved rate.

Q4: Why did the court order an inquiry into overtime?

Because there was a dispute about whether the workers worked more than their contracted hours, and the court wanted to ensure fair compensation if they did.

Q5: What does this mean for other part-time or ad hoc workers?

This case reinforces that such workers cannot claim regularisation unless their posts are sanctioned and their employment is not ad hoc or temporary. However, if they work extra hours, they may be entitled to overtime pay.