The Supreme Court on Friday (Jan. 31) granted relief to part-time sweepers who were appointed on a temporary basis to regular sanctioned posts, affirming that such part-time employees are entitled to receive regular pay. The Court rejected the State's argument that a part-time appointment on a regular sanctioned post would not entitle the Appellants to receive regular pay. Their (Appellants) designation as part-time sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless. Appellants were thus appointed on regular posts even though they were temporary. the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said. The bench heard the case where the Appellants/cleaning workers were denied the benefit of the regular pay by the Madhya Pradesh Government despite being appointed on a temporary basis on a regular sanctioned post that were lying vacant in the department. The Appellants referenced the MP High Court case of Ram Naresh Prajapati & Ors vs State of M.P (2016) to argue that, having completed three years of service as part-time employees on a regular sanctioned basis in accordance with the circular dated 10.05.1984, they are entitled to receive regular pay. Unlike Ram Naresh Prajapati's case (where a screening committee made appointments under a special drive), the State argued that the Appellants' part-time appointments to regular sanctioned posts, necessitated by work demands and made without a screening committee, disqualify them from the same regular pay benefits. The Single Bench of the High Court held in the Appellant's favor. However, in State's appeal the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Bench decision prompting the Appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. Reversing the High Court's Division Bench decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath held that since the Appellants completed three years of service per the 1984 circular, the lack of a screening committee (unlike Ram Naresh Prajapati) doesn't preclude them from claiming regular pay. In our considered opinion, this factual difference is not enough to conclude that Appellants are differently situated from Ram Naresh Prajapati, because the appellants have sufficiently proven that they were employed on regular and sanctioned posts by their initial appointment orders. They are thus covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years after being employed as 'temporary' employees on Collector's wages, with recommendation of the District Level Recruitment Committee. It is thus clear that they fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale. Their designation as 'part-time' sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless. Appellants were thus appointed on regular posts even though they were temporary., the court observed. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed, and the decision rendered by the Single Bench of the High Court was affirmed.