₹1200 Honorarium Per Month 'Illusory'; Part-Time Police Station Sweepers Entitled To Minimum Wages Under 1948 Act: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice JJ Munir specifically observed that the 'illusory' honorarium of Rs. 1,200 per month, fixed by a 2019 Government Order, cannot override the statutory protection granted to scheduled employment.

With this, the bench allowed a writ petition filed by two Safaikarmis (sweepers) working at Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat in District Lalitpur.

The Court also issued a mandamus to the Director General of Police and other high-ranking officials to ensure that the petitioners are remunerated in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act along with arrears from the date of their engagement.

It was the case of the petitioners that they are engaged since July 2022 but they were being paid a meagre honorarium of Rs. 1,200 per month. They contended that they worked from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with a break and perform duties identical to regular Class IV employees, however, they were being paid less than a casual hand under MNREGA.

The Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners were not regular employees but were hired on a part-time basis for approximately 1:30 hours daily and hence, can't be paid more than what was prescribed by a Government Order dated March 9, 2019 whereunder part-time sweepers were only entitled to the fixed honorarium of Rs. 1,200.

In view of the factual dispute regarding the working hours, the High Court appointed the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur, as a commissioner to inspect the premises. The Commissioner's report painted a different picture than the police's version.

Perusing the findings of the report, the HC in its order quoted commissioner's observation: "First prima facie, observing the area of both police stations and the construction situated therein, it appears that it is not possible to clean the police station premises in one to one and a half hours. The police station premises is a public place where people keep coming and going, due to which it is natural for it to get dirty constantly".

In his report, the Commissioner further remarked that after cleaning in the morning, it was impossible for the premises to remain clean the whole day without constant upkeep.

The state of cleanliness found during the inspection of the police station led the Commissioner to infer that cleaning work must be going on continuously in the police station.

Though the Court found it difficult to definitively hold the petitioners as whole-timers due to the absence of attendance registers and missing CCTV footage, Justice Munir proceeded to decide the issue on a vital question of law: Even if the petitioners are part-timers, are they excluded from the Minimum Wages Act?

The Superintendent of Police argued that since the petitioners were not employees of the Police Department or an outsourcing agency, there was no provision for paying them minimum wages.

The Court, however, termed this stance 'absolutely flawed'. Justice Munir observed that if the petitioners were regular employees, they would be governed by service rules. However, he added that since, they are men, whose service and labor is hired as outsiders, the protection of the Act of 1948 would be available to them.

The HC noted that "Sweeping and Cleaning" was added as a Scheduled Employment to the Act in 2005 and since the Police Department is an establishment under the State Government, it falls within the definition of an 'employer' under Section 2(e) of the Act.

Justice Munir further noted that the Government Order of 2019 is merely an executive order and that it has to give way to the minimum wages fixed by a notification issued by the State Government under the Act of 1948.

The rates fixed under the Act are statutory in character and must prevail over executive orders, the bench added.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that even on an hourly basis the petitioners were underpaid in view of the fact that under the notifications revising minimum wages, the hourly minimum wage for an unskilled worker had risen from Rs. 62.45 in 2022 to Rs. 70.47 in 2025.

"Accepting the respondents' case that the petitioners are part-timers, they are clearly entitled to receive minimum wages...and not in accordance with the Government Order dated 09.03.2019," the Court held.

Thus, rejecting the State's case, the High Court ordered the respondents to pay the petitioners wages calculated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, covering the entire period of their service.