The Gujarat High Court has clarified a crucial issue regarding part-time government employees and their entitlement to a fixed monthly wage as per a State Government circular dated 16 July 2019. The court’s rulings interpret this circular to mean that only those part-time employees who actually work four hours or more a day are eligible for the fixed pay of ₹14,800. The court has rejected any interpretation that would grant this fixed pay to part-timers who work for less than four hours.
The context of these judgments lies in a longstanding remuneration policy for part-time government workers. Prior to the 2019 circular, part-time employees had different daily pay rates depending on whether they worked more than four hours or up to four hours. Specifically, under an earlier circular, those working more than four hours were paid ₹220 per day, while those working up to four hours were paid ₹110 per day. The July 2019 circular consolidated these rates into a single fixed monthly wage of ₹14,800, effective from 1 January 2019. This new pay scale aimed to align part-time remuneration with a minimum pay scale equivalent to that of a class of regular (Class-IV) government employees.
A landmark decision in this area is the Division Bench judgment in the case “State of Gujarat vs. Haresh Arjanbhai Parmar” dated 11 August 2023. The State government challenged a lower court’s interpretation, arguing that the circular should apply only to part-timers working “more than four hours” daily and not to those working exactly four hours. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the circular’s language must be interpreted more broadly to honor the policy’s objective. The court noted that while the circular referenced two categories (those working more than four hours and those working “up to four hours”), the phrase “up to four hours” should be read in conjunction with a requirement of actual working hours—not as a blanket entitlement regardless of how few hours the part-timer works in practice.
The court reasoned that granting the fixed wage to someone who works significantly less than four hours a day would defeat the policy’s intention. If even part-timers working one or two hours received the full fixed pay, there would be a disproportionate and unjust benefit that could not have been intended by the government. Accordingly, the court held that only those who genuinely render a minimum of four hours of service each day qualify for the ₹14,800 fixed pay.
The High Court also emphasized that this interpretation is consistent with earlier policy documents and circulars. In its judgment, the court referred to prior Finance Department resolutions and earlier judgments that drew a clear distinction between part-time employees based on their working hours. The court pointed out that the 2019 circular did not abandon this distinction but rather built on it; by consolidating pay into a fixed monthly amount, the government intended to ensure fair compensation for those who meet the minimum hour requirement.
This interpretation has been applied in subsequent cases. For example, in a more recent judgment, the High Court directed the relevant government departments to verify the daily working hours of a part-time employee whose claim for the fixed pay had been denied. The court explicitly ordered that, if records confirm that the employee works at least four hours per day, a proposal must be submitted to apply the benefit of the 2019 circular and pay arrears from 1 January 2019. The court gave strict timelines to verify efficiency and make payments once the eligibility was confirmed.
In yet another case, the court affirmed that the benefit of the fixed pay under the circular does not extend to those working less than four hours. The court explained that the wording “up to four hours” in the circular does not mean “any number of hours less than four,” but rather is meant to include those working exactly four hours. To interpret otherwise would create an inequitable windfall for part-timers who work just a fraction of the day.
The High Court’s rulings thereby draw a clear legal line: part-time employees must actually work a minimum of four hours daily to claim the fixed wage of ₹14,800. The court’s interpretation is rooted in the text of the circular, the historical policy background, and the broader principle of fairness that part-time workers who provide a substantial daily contribution should not be paid less arbitrarily. At the same time, the court has guarded against granting the full fixed wage to those rendering very short hours, which would undermine the policy’s rationale.
Moreover, the court has insisted on a mechanism to verify working hours. It has directed appointing authorities and relevant departments to examine attendance and duty records to confirm whether part-time employees fulfill the minimum four-hour threshold. Upon such verification, the benefits prescribed by the circular—both prospective monthly pay and retrospective arrears—must be processed by the State government.
Through these decisions, the Gujarat High Court has reinforced the principle that the entitlement to fixed monthly pay for part-time workers is contingent on meaningful daily engagement. The court’s rulings underscore the importance of interpreting government policy in line with its intended remedial purpose: to ensure fair wages for part-time workers who genuinely contribute a significant portion of daily working hours, while preventing unintended and excessive benefits for those whose engagement is minimal.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.