Contract Workers Hired Through Contractors Not Entitled to Parity With Regular Staff: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that workers engaged through third-party contractors cannot claim the same status, pay, or service benefits as regular employees of government bodies. The Court said granting such parity would weaken the principles of public recruitment and transparent hiring.

The Court explained that regular government jobs are a public asset. Such posts are filled through open and fair procedures that give every eligible citizen an equal chance. In contrast, workers hired through contractors are selected at the contractor’s discretion, with no prescribed public recruitment process. Because of this clear difference, both categories cannot be treated alike in law.

According to the Court, if contractual workers hired through intermediaries are given the same benefits as regular employees, it would indirectly approve an arbitrary hiring system. This would defeat the purpose of having different modes of engagement and dilute the sanctity of public employment.

Background of the Case

The case involved sanitation and other workers engaged by the Nandyal Municipal Council in Andhra Pradesh through manpower contractors since 1994. Although contractors changed over the years, the same workers continued working for nearly three decades.

Claiming that they performed the same work as regular municipal staff but were paid much less, the workers approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Their plea was rejected. However, in 2018, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in their favour and directed the municipality to pay them wages equal to the minimum of the regular pay scale, along with annual increments.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Municipal Council challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. It argued that there was no direct employer–employee relationship with the workers, as they were engaged through contractors.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Vipul M. Pancholi agreed with this argument. The Court held that since the workers were hired through an intermediary contractor, the Municipal Council was not legally bound to give them the same benefits as regular employees.

The Court also clarified that earlier judgments granting equal pay to contractual workers applied only where such workers were directly employed by the government. That situation was different from the present case, where engagement was through a contractor.

Limited Relief on Humanitarian Grounds

While setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court took note of the workers’ long and uninterrupted service. It asked the Municipal Council to examine the possibility of regularisation, considering that the work performed appeared to be permanent in nature.

However, the Court made it clear that this direction was given only due to the special facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

Case Title: The Municipal Council v. K. Jayaram and Others