Safiya Malik

The High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir, in a recent order concerning part-time sweepers at police stations, held that they are entitled to wages calculated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, irrespective of their temporary status. Allowing the petition in part, the Court issued a mandamus to the Director General of Police, the district police chief and station heads to pay current wages and arrears from the date of engagement at notified minimum wage rates, instead of the earlier honorarium of Rs 1,200 per month under a 2019 Government Order. Justice Munir further noted that this fixed honorarium cannot override the statutory minimum wages applicable to sweeping and cleaning, a scheduled employment, and directed compliance within a specified period.

The petition concerned two individuals engaged as Safaikarmi/Sweepers on a temporary basis in police stations at Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur. They asserted that they had been working since July 2022 without formal appointment letters and were receiving an honorarium of ₹1200 per month. They claimed to be working daily in two shifts from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The petitioners submitted multiple applications to police and district authorities seeking higher remuneration, contending that the amount paid was less than wages under MGNREGA and contrary to rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Also Read: Statements Carbon Copies Of Each Other : Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentences For Non-Compliance With S. 313 CrPC, Orders Fresh Trial

The Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, filed an affidavit asserting that the petitioners were part-time sweepers working only for about one hour per day and were paid according to a Government Order dated 09.03.2019.

Due to conflicting claims regarding working hours, the Court appointed the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lalitpur, as Commissioner to conduct an on-site inspection, collect statements of police personnel, petitioners, and local witnesses, and assess the nature of work performed. The Commissioner submitted a detailed report dated 02.09.2024 along with recorded statements.

The statutory provisions relied upon included Section 2(b), Section 2(e), Section 2(g), Section 2(i), Sections 3, 5, 12, and 26 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the notifications fixing minimum wages, including notification dated 30.09.2022.

The Court recorded that the primary issue was “whether the petitioners are engaged on a whole-time basis… or their duties require presence on a part-time basis.”  The Court considered objections of the Superintendent of Police, including the claim that CCTV footage only showed arrival times and the assertion that cleanliness cannot determine duration of work. However, the Court observed that the objection “discounts one remark of the learned Commissioner that the police station is a public place… therefore, the primstate of cleanliness… is telltale of the constant discharge of duties.”

The Court then examined the Superintendent of Police’s affidavit, quoting: “the petitioners are not employees of the police department… hence, there is no provision for paying them minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act.”

The Court stated: “the stand… is absolutely flawed.” and held that since the petitioners were hired dehors service rules, “the protection of the Act of 1948 would be available to them.”  The Court referred to statutory provisions, observing that sweeping and cleaning “has been added… as scheduled employment.” and that “it would apply to the respondents, who are a Department and Establishment of the State Government.”

It further recorded that minimum wage notifications dated 30.09.2022, 03.04.2023, and 28.03.2025 prescribe hourly rates, noting: “the petitioners’ hourly minimum wage in the year 2022 would be Rs.62.45… in the year 2023, Rs.64.60… in the year 2025, Rs.70.47.”

The Court stated that the executive Government Order of 09.03.2019 “has to give way to the minimum wages fixed by a notification issued under the Act of 1948… statutory in character and would prevail.”

The Court held: “In the overall conspectus of facts while holding that the petitioners are part-time wagers and working as such in the Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur, it is also held that they are entitled to be remunerated according to the minimum wages notified from time to time under the Act of 1948 and not in accordance with Government Order dated 09.03.2019.”

The Court ordered: “In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. A mandamus is issued to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, the Station House Officers of Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur, to ensure amongst themselves remuneration to the petitioners in accordance with the Act of 1948, together with arrears from the date of engagement until payment of such arrears within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of this order.”

Also Read: Criminal Antecedents Of Advocates Pose Threat To Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Invokes Article 227, Directs DGP To Furnish Statewide Data On Cases Against Lawyers

“It goes without saying that the current wages shall be paid in accordance with the Act of 1948, revised from time to time in terms of the notifications issued under the said Act. There shall be no order as to costs.”

“Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, the Station House Officers of Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur by the Registrar (Compliance).”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamini Pandey (Dubey)

Case Title: Gobinddas and another vs. State of U.P. and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:204375
Case Number: Writ-A No. 10655 of 2024
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir