Municipal Council, Nandyal v. K. Jayaram - Public Employment - Regular and Contractual - Distinction
Public Employment - Regular and Contractual - Distinction - Employment under a State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to the principal- If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. (Para 9)
Quotes - Sometimes justice is required to be tempered with mercy as human factors cannot be totally lost sight of. (Para 11)
Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals by Nandyal Municipality, setting aside the High Court’s 2018 order that had directed payment of minimum time-scale and increments to contract workers, and restored the Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal. The Court held that workers engaged through third-party contractors lack a direct employer-employee relationship with the municipality, distinguishing cases where contractual engagement was direct, and relied on Bharat Heavy Electricals while noting Jagjit Singh was factually different. It nevertheless urged the municipality, without creating precedent, to compassionately examine regularizing long-serving workers on perpetual posts.
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Municipal Council, Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District, A.P. v. K. Jayaram & Others (with connected appeals: G. Venkateswara Sarma & Others; B. Bhaskarachari & Others).
- Neutral citation: Not provided in the document.
- Coram: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.; Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
- Judgment date: 16 December 2025.
- Disposition: Appeals allowed; High Court order dated 23.08.2018 set aside; Tribunal’s orders restored. Compassionate observation to consider regularization made, expressly non-precedential.
Caselaws and Citations
- Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Others, (2019) 13 SCC 82.
- Paras 21, 22, 24 relied on by appellant; paras 2, 4 noted by respondents to distinguish.
- State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh & Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148.
- Paras 44.8, 44.9, 56–58, 61 cited by respondents on equal pay for equal work for contractual appointees directly engaged by the principal.
- Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education & Another v. Raj Kumar Mishra & Another, Civil Appeal No. 4014 of 2025 (decision dated 17.09.2025).
- Paras 6 and 9 cited by appellant.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Constitution of India:
- Article 12 (State).
- Minimum Wages framework referenced in contractual terms (payment not below Government-prescribed minimum wages; statutory deductions/contributions via contractor). Specific statute names are not detailed in the order.