TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prayer made by the Petitioners. This Court, while adjudicating upon the controversy arrived at the conclusion, that the High Court had granted relief to the Respondents on the assumption that two vacant posts of Assistant Engineer were utilized for appointing the Respondents. The above impression was found to be ex-facie fallacious, by this Court. This Court was of the view, that the orders of appointment issued to the Respondents, did not lead to the inference, that they were appointed against the two vacant posts of Assistant Engineer. Despite the above, this Court held, that the decision of the Appellant Corporation to effect economy by depriving the Respondents even, the minimum of pay-scale, was totally arbitrary and unjustified. This Court expressed the view, that the very fact that the Respondents were engaged on a consolidated salary of ₹ 2000 per month, while the prescribed pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer in the other branches was ₹ 2200-4000, and that of Junior Engineer was ₹ 1600-2660, was sufficient to infer, that both the Respondents were engaged to work against the posts of Assistant Engineer. There is no room for any doubt, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. All the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (-at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post - Application disposed off. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10356 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL). 31676 CC NO. 15616 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10357 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) 31677 CC NO. 16434 OF 2011) AND OTHERS. - - - Dated:- 26-10-2016 - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10358 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 37162 OF 2012), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10360 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 37164 OF 2012), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10361 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of three years, prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. In sum and substance, the above mentioned division bench held, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees. 3. Another division bench of the same High Court, in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA No. 1024 of 2009, decided on 30.8.2010), dismissed an intra-Court appeal preferred by the State of Punjab, arising out of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors. (CWP No. 14050 of 1999, decided on 20.11.2002), and affirmed the decision of the single Judge, in connected appeals preferred by employees. The letters patent bench held, that the writ Petitioners (working as daily-wage Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars, Ledger Clerks, Ledger Keepers, Petrol Men, Surveyors, Fitter Coolies, Sewermen, and the like), were entitled to minimum of the pay-scale, alongwith permissible allowances (as revised from time to time), which were being given to similarly placed regular employees. Arrears payable to the concerned employees were limited to three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts. The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: (1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Petitioner was, that he should be placed in the scale of pay, as was extended to Drivers in other governmental organizations in Delhi. The instant prayer was based on the submission, that he was discharging the same duties as other Drivers. His contention was, that the duties of Drivers engaged by the Delhi Police Force, were more onerous than Drivers in other departments. He based his claim on the logic, that there was no reason/justification, to assign different pay-scales to Drivers, engaged in different departments of the Delhi Administration. (ii) This Court on examining the above controversy, arrived at the conclusion, that merely the fact that the concerned employees were engaged in different departments of the Government, was not by itself sufficient to justify different pay-scales. It was acknowledged, that though persons holding the same rank/designation in different departments of the Government, may be discharging different duties. Yet it was held, that if their powers, duties and responsibilities were identical, there was no justification for extending different scales of pay to them, merely because they were engaged in different departments. Accordingly it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Article 39(d) enjoins a duty to see that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women and this directive should be understood and interpreted in the light of the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618. Revealing the scope and content of this facet of equality, Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed as under: (SCC p. 619, para 1) Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations aroused as a consequence and the forward looking posture of this Court, the under-privileged also are clamoring for the rights and are seeking the intervention of the court with touching faith and confidence in the court. The Judges of the court have a duty to redeem their Constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the five-star hotel. Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in their pay-scales, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners claimed 'equal pay for equal work'. (ii) The assertions made by the Petitioners were repudiated by the Union of India. Whilst acknowledging, that the duties and work performed by the Petitioners were/was identical to that performed by their counterparts attached to Joint Secretaries/Secretaries and other officers in the secretariat, yet it was pointed out, that their counterparts working in the secretariat, constituted a class, which was distinguishable from them. It was asserted, that the above counterparts discharged duties of higher responsibility, as Joint Secretaries and Directors in the Central Secretariat performed functions and duties of greater responsibility, as compared to heads of departments, with whom the Petitioners were attached. It was contended, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' depended on the nature of the work done, and not on the mere volume and kind of work. The Respondents also asserted, that people discharging duties and responsibilities which were qualitatively different, when examined on the touchstone of reliability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Pay Commission was of the view, that the nature of work of Section Officers was not only different, but also, more onerous than that of Bench Secretaries. It also expressed the view, that Section Officers had to bear more responsibilities in their sections, and were required to exercise control over their subordinates. Additionally, they were required to prepare lengthy original notes, in complicated matters. The Pay Commission therefore recommended, the pay-scale of ₹ 400-750 for Bench Secretaries and ₹ 500-1000 for Section Officers. Thereupon, the Anomalies Committee, while rejecting the claim of Bench Secretaries for being placed on par with Section Officers, suggested that 10 posts of Bench Secretaries should be upgraded and placed in the pay-scale of ₹ 500-1000 (the same as, Section Officers). Those Bench Secretaries, who were placed in the pay-scale of ₹ 500-1000 were designated as Bench Secretaries Grade-I, and those placed in the pay-scale of ₹ 400-750, were designated as Bench Secretaries Grade-II. (ii) This Court while adjudicating upon the controversy, examined the matter from two different angles. Firstly, whether Bench Secretaries i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Secretaries Grade-I, as against Bench Secretaries Grade-II. (v) In the above view of the matter, the claim raised by the Bench Secretaries for equal pay, as was extended to Section Officers, was declined by this Court. 11. Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (1989) 2 SCC 235, decided by a two-Judge bench: The Petitioner in this case, was appointed against the post of Hearing Therapist, at the AIIMS, with effect from 3.8.1972. At that juncture, he was placed in the pay-scale of ₹ 210-425. Based on the recommendations made by the Third Pay Commission (which were adopted by the AIIMS), the pay-scale for the post of Hearing Therapist was revised to ₹ 425-700, with effect from 1.1.1973. The Petitioner accordingly came to be paid emoluments in the aforesaid revised pay-scale. The Petitioner asserted, that the post of Hearing Therapist was required to discharge duties and responsibilities which were similar to those of the posts of Speech Pathologist and Audiologist. The said posts were in the pay-scale of ₹ 650-1200. Since the claim of the Petitioner for the aforesaid higher pay-scale (made under the principle of 'equal pay for equal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts, on the basis of educational qualifications, and therefore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', could not be invoked or applied. It was further held, that the Third Pay Commission had considered the claim of Hearing Therapists, but did not accede to the grievances made by them. Since the Pay Commission was in better position to judge the volume of work, qualitative difference and the reliability and responsibility required of the two posts, this Court declined to accept the prayer made by the Petitioner, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 12. Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 619, decided by a two-Judge bench: The workers' union in the above case, had approached this Court, in the first instance in 1984, by filing writ petition No. 13924 of 1984. In the above petition, the relief claimed was for payment of wages under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Petitioners sought parity with employees of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, and employees of other departments of the Delhi Administration, and the Union of India. They approached this Court again by filing civil writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipal Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the Union of India. (iv) Based on the aforesaid factual conclusion, this Court held that the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' implies and requires, equal treatment for those who are similarly situated. It was held, that a comparison could not be drawn between unequals. Since the workers who had approached the Court in the present case, had failed to establish that they were situated similarly as others, it was held, that they could not be extended benefits which were being given to those, with whom they claimed parity. In this behalf this Court also opined, that the question as to whether persons were situated equally, had to be determined by the application of broad and reasonable tests, and not by way of a mathematical formula of exactitude. And therefore, since there were no other employees comparable to the employees working in the Grih Kalyan Kendras, this Court declined to entertain the prayer made by the Petitioners. 13. Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey (2000) 8 SCC 580, decided by a two-Judge bench: It was the case of the Respondent, that he was holding the post of Naik (Radio Operator), in which capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming parity. 14. State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu (2002) 4 SCC 556, decided by a three-Judge bench: Entry into the management cadre in banking establishments, is Junior Management Grade Scale-1. The said cadre comprises of Probationary Officers, Trainee Officers and other officers who possess technical skills (specialized officers), such as Assistant Law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant Engineers, Technical Officers, Medical Officers, Rural Development Officers, and other technical posts. All the posts in the Junior Management Grade Scale-1 cadre, were divisible into two categories - generalist officers, and specialist officers. Under the prevalent Rules - the 1979 Order, the benefit of a higher starting pay, was extended only to Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers (i.e. to generalist officers), while Rural Development Officers and other specialist officers like Assistant Law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant Engineers etc., were not entitled to a higher starting pay. Rural Development Officers, agitated their claim for similar benefits, as were extended to Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers (i.e. to the generalist officers). The question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Taking into account the nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered by the Respondents the Bank has concluded that the duties and responsibilities of the Respondents are not comparable to the duties and responsibilities of the RDOs, the Probationary Officers or the Trainee Officers. 20. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that specialist officers are also recruited from the open market and are confirmed after successfully completing the probation of 2 years. Before the Order of 1979 came into force, they were similarly being granted benefit of additional increments at the time of appointment in the same manner as the generalist officers. However, after the order of 1979 they have been deprived of this benefit. Subsequently that benefit was extended to RDOs but not to the Respondents and others like them. We have earlier noticed that the RDOs were given the benefit of advance increments on the basis of the report of an Expert Committee which justified their classification with the generalist officers, having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered by them. However, on consideration of the case of the Respondents, the Bank as reached a diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in the above case, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a direction to the Appellant herein, to grant Personal Assistants in the Civil Secretariat, Haryana, the pay-scale of ₹ 2000-3500 + ₹ 150 as special pay, which had been given to Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat. The aforesaid prayer was made in the background of the fact, that the State of Haryana had accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, with regard to revision of pay-scales, with effect from 1.1.1986. The case of Personal Assistants before the High Court was, that prior to 1986, Personal Assistants working in the Civil Secretariat, Haryana, were enjoying a higher scale of pay, than was extended to Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat. On the receipt of Fourth Central Pay Commission report, the Central Government revised the pay-scale of Personal Assistants to ₹ 2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986. It was pointed out, that even though the Government of Haryana had accepted the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, and had also implemented the same, in respect of certain categories of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termination, by not making any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities, or about the qualifications prescribed for recruitment. This Court accordingly set aside the order passed by the High Court, allowing parity. (iv) In order to delineate the parameters, on the basis of which the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' can be made applicable, this Court observed as under: 10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passage of five years since his induction into service, he was paid the same consolidated salary (referred to above), and was also not being regularized. It was also pointed out, that another individual junior to him was regularized against the post of Junior Assistant. The Respondent then approached the Orissa High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking appointment on regular basis. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition, by directing, that the Respondent be not disengaged from service. The High Court further directed, that the Respondent be paid salary in the regular scale of pay admissible to Junior Assistants, with effect from September, 1997. A review petition filed against the High Court's order dated 11.9.1997, was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the above orders, the Orissa University of Agriculture Technology approached this Court. While dealing with the question of 'equal pay for equal work', this Court, noticed the factual position as under: 10. The High Court before directing to give regular pay-scale to the Respondent w.e.f. September, 1997 on the principle of equal pay for equal work did not examine the pleadings and facts of the case in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the position, that diploma holder engineers working as Operator-cum-Mechanics in the Irrigation Department, were not entitled to be designated as Sub-Assistant Engineers. The said plea was negatived by this Court in State of West Bengal v. Debdas Kumar 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 138. (ii) Another group of Operator-cum-Mechanics, who did not possess diploma in engineering, and were graduates in science, or were holding school final examination certificate, claimed parity with Operator-cum-Mechanics, possessing the qualification of diploma in engineering. This Court, while rejecting their claim, observed as under: 30. The Respondents are merely graduates in Science. They do not have the requisite technical qualification. Only because they are graduates, they cannot, in our opinion, claim equality with the holders of diploma in Engineering. If any relief is granted by this Court to the Respondents on the aforementioned ground, the same will be in contravention of the statutory rules. It is trite that this Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily grant such a relief which would be in violation of a statutory provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. More so, when we have already held that the Appellants are not the employees of BCCL, there is no question seeking any parity of the pay with that of the clerks of BCCL. A perusal of the determination rendered by this Court reveals, that for claiming parity under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', there should be total identity between the post held by the claimants, and the reference post, with whom parity is claimed. 19. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1, decided by a three-Judge bench: Directions were issued by the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts to the Appellant, in the above matter, to absorb persons employed by the Official Liquidators (attached to those High Courts) under Rule 308 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against sanctioned posts, in the Department of Company Affairs. By virtue of the above directions, the Respondents who were employed/engaged by Official Liquidators, were paid salaries and allowances from the Company's funds. The question that arose for consideration before this Court was, whether the Respondents were entitled to sanctioned Government posts, in the office of the Official Liquidator(s). While dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced in Pay-Scale 11 (- ₹ 425-1050). It was based on the above factual assertion, that the Respondents claimed placement in Pay-Scale 11 (- ₹ 425-1050). The claim of the Respondents, was not based on the assertion, that Inspectors (Agricultural Minimum Wages) were discharging duties and responsibilities, which were similar/identical to those of Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayats) and Revenue Officers. It is this aspect, which weighed with this Court while determining the claim of the Respondents for parity. In the above adjudication, this Court recorded the following observations: 20. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity - vide State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh (1998) 1 SCC 422; Associate Banks Officers' Association v. SBI: (1998) 1 SCC 428; State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72; State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123; S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 and U.P. SEB v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606. 21. What is significant in this case is that parity is claimed by Inspectors, AMW, by seeking extension of the pay sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust. Based on the above consideration, this Court observed, that Inspectors (Agricultural Minimum Wages), had neither pleaded nor proved, that they were discharging duties and functions similar to the duties and functions of the Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayats) and Revenue Officers, and therefore held, that their claim for pay parity, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', could not be accepted. 21. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452, decided by a two-Judge bench: In the above matter, the Respondents were working as Senior Dieticians and Dieticians in the Directorate of Health Services of the Chandigarh Administration. They were posted in the General Hospital, Chandigarh, under the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh. They were placed in the pay-scale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas, the main duties of the Dietician and Senior Dietician in the Government Multi-Specialty Hospital in the Union Territory Chandigarh are only to check the quality of food being provided to the patients and to manage the kitchen. Based on the above determination, the prayer for parity under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was declined to the Respondents, and accordingly the judgment of the High Court, was set aside. 22. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, decided by a three-Judge bench: The Respondent in the above case, was appointed against the post of Speech Therapist/Audiologist, in the Durgapur Steel Plant, in S-6 grade in Medical and Health Services. After serving for a few years, he addressed a representation to the Appellant, claiming parity with one B.V. Prabhakar, employed at the Rourkela Steel Plant (a different unit of the same company). The said B.V. Prabhakar was holding the post of E-1 grade in the executive cadre, though designated as Speech Therapist/Audiologist. In his representation, the Respondent did not claim parity in pay, but only claimed change of the cadre and upgradation of his post, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the Court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. Based on the above consideration, this Court recorded its analysis, on the merits of the controversy, as under: 34. Shri B.V. Prabhakar, had been appointed in E-1 Grade, in the Rourkela unit, considering his past services in the Bokaro Steel Plant, another unit of the Company, for about two decades prior to the recruitment of the Respondent. As every unit may make appointments taking into consideration the local needs and requirement, such parity claimed by the Respondent cannot be held to be tenable. The reliefs sought by the Respondent for upgradation of the post and waiving the eligibility criteria had rightly been refused by the Appellants and by the learned Single Judge. In such a fact-situation, there was no justification for the Division Bench to allow the writ petition, granting the benefit from the date of initial appointment of the Respondent. The Respondent has not produced any tangible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ims. It was observed that the post at headquarters cannot be compared with the post at institutional level as both are governed by different sets of service rules. The second prayer with regard to the higher pay scale given to Shri J.I.P. Madan was rejected on the ground that he had been given the benefit of second upgradation in pay since he had earned only one promotion throughout his professional career. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant filed a writ petition C.W.P. No. 9595 CAT of 2004 before the High Court. The writ petition has also been dismissed by judgment dated 8-7-2008. This judgment is impugned in the present appeal. This Court, recorded the following additional reasons, for not accepting the claim of the Appellant, by observing as under: 15. In our opinion, the explanation given by Mrs. Sunita Rao does not leave any room for doubt that the claim made by the Appellant is wholly misconceived. There is no comparison between the Appellant and Shri J.I.P. Madan. The Appellant had duly earned promotion in his cadre from the lowest rank to the higher rank. Having joined in Group D, he retired on the post of AAO. On the other hand, Shri J.I.P. Madan had been work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales. 21. In expressing the aforesaid opinion, we are fortified by the observations made by this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514. In that case, upon review of a large number of judicial precedents relating to the principle of equal pay for equal work , this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 527-28, para 19) 19. ... Undoubtedly, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsthan). Accordingly, with effect from 1990, the said Society commenced to manage the affairs of the employees, of the above two schools. Two writ petitions were filed by the employees of the two schools before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, seeking a mandamus, that they be declared as employees of NALCO, and be treated as such, with the consequential prayer, that the employees of the two schools be accorded suitable pay-scales, as were admissible to the employees of NALCO. The High Court accepted the above prayers. It is, therefore, that NALCO approached this Court. (ii) In adjudicating upon the above matter, this Court recorded its consideration as under: 33. Insofar as their service conditions are concerned, as already conceded by even the Respondents themselves, their salaries and other perks which they are getting are better than their counter parts in Government schools or aided/unaided recognised schools in the State of Orissa. In a situation like this even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that NALCO is the employer of these employees, they would not be entitled to the pay scales which are given to other employees of NALCO as there cannot be any compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersy to rest and held that the principle, 'equal pay for equal work' must satisfy the test that the incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. Their Lordships have reviewed all the cases bearing on the subject and after a detailed discussion have finally put the controversy to rest that the persons who claimed the parity should satisfy the court that the conditions are identical and equal and same duties are being discharged by them. Though a number of cases were cited for our consideration but no useful purpose will be served as in Charanjit Singh all these cases have been reviewed by this Court. More so, when we have already held that the Appellants are not the employees of BCCL, there is no question seeking any parity of the pay with that of the clerks of BCCL. Based on the above consideration, this Court recorded its conclusion as follows: 35. We say at the cost of repetition that there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of appointment, experience, educational qualifications between the NALCO employees and the employees of the two schools. In fact, such a comparison can be made with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the country were performing similar duties as regular Class-IV employees in its employment, it was held, that they must get the same salary and conditions of service as regular Class-IV employees, and that, it made no difference whether they were appointed on sanctioned posts or not. So long as they were performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary. 27. Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD (1986) 1 SCC 639, decided by a two-Judge bench: The Petitioners in the instant case were employed by the Central Public Works Department on daily-wage basis. They demanded the same wage as was being paid to permanent employees, doing identical work. Herein, the Respondent-employer again contested the claim, by raising the plea that Petitioners could not be employed on regular and permanent basis for want of permanent posts. One of the objections raised to repudiate the claim of the Petitioners was, that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was a mere abstract doctrine and was not capable of being enforced in law. (ii) The objection raised by the Government was rejected. It was held, that all organs of the State were committed to the directive princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of six months, because the posts against which they were appointed, were sanctioned for one year at a time. (ii) Having examined the controversy, this Court rejected all the above submissions advanced on behalf of the State Government. It was held, that the duties discharged by the Petitioners even though for a shorter duration, were not any different from Supervisors, engaged in the regular cadre. Even though recruitment of Supervisors in the regular cadre was made by the Subordinate Selection Board by way of an open selection, whereas the Petitioners were selected through a process of consideration which was limited to a cluster of a few villages, it was concluded that, that could not justify the denial to the Petitioners, wages which were being paid to Supervisors, working in the regular cadre. It was held, that so long as the Petitioners were doing work, which was similar to the work of Supervisors engaged in the regular cadre, they could not be denied parity in their wages. Accordingly it was held, that from the standpoint of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', the Petitioners could not be discriminated against, in regard to pay-scales. Having conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than the salary and allowances paid to regular employees, of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, engaged for the same nature of work. The Director General, Posts and Telegraphs Department, by an order dated 15.5.1980 prescribed the following wages for casual labourers in the Department: (i) Casual labour who has not completed 720 days of service in a period of three years at the rate of 240 days per annum with the Department as on April 1, 1980. No change. They will continue to be paid at the approved local rates. (ii) Casual labour who having been working with the Department from April 1, 1977 or earlier and have completed 720 days of service as on April 1, 1980. Daily wages equal to 75 per cent of 1/30th of the minimum of Group D Time Scale plus admissible DA. (iii) Casual labour who has been working in the Department from April 1, 1975 or earlier and has completed 1200 days of service as on April 1, 1980. Daily wages equal to 1/30th of the minimum of the Group D Time Scale plus 1/30th of the admissible DA. (iv) All the casual labourers will, however, continue to be employed on daily wages only. (v) These orders for enhanced rates for category (ii) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corresponding cadres. The aforesaid demands were departmentally rejected on 13.12.1985. It is, therefore, that the Petitioners approached this Court for the redressal of their grievances. (iv) Before this Court the Union of India contended, that the employees in question belonged to the category of casual labourers, and had not been regularly employed. As such, it was urged that they were not entitled to the same privileges, which were extended to regular employees. (v) This Court while adjudicating upon the controversy, took into consideration the fact that, the employees in question were rendering the same kind of service which was being rendered by regular employees. The submission advanced before this Court, on behalf of the casual labourers, was Under Article 38(2) of the Constitution, which provides that The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. It was also urged on behalf of the employees, that the State could not deny (at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case were Carpenters (1st and 2nd grade), employed at the Wood Working Centre of the Himachal Pradesh State Handicraft Corporation. They were termed as daily-rated employees. Their claim in their petition was for emoluments in terms of wages paid to their counterparts in regular Government service, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. On the factual matrix, based on the averments made in the pleadings, this Court felt that the Corporation with which the Petitioners were employed, had no regularly employed Carpenter. It is, therefore evident, that the claim of the Petitioners was only with reference to Carpenters engaged in different Government services. In the instant factual backdrop, this Court expressed the view, that the claim made by the Petitioners could not be accepted, because the discrimination complained of, must be within the same establishment, owned by the same management. It was emphasized, that a comparison under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' could not be made with counterparts in other establishments, having a different management, or even with establishments in different geographical locations, though owned by the same ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration, firstly, whether other similarly situated employees (engaged in similar comparable works, putting in comparable hours of work, in a comparable employment) were being paid higher pay, and if so, what should be the entitlement of the agitating employees, in order to comply with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'; and secondly, if there is no other similar comparable employment, whether the remuneration of the agitating employees deserved to be revised, on the ground that their remuneration was unconscionable or unfair, and if so, to what extent. Pursuant to the above request, the former Chief Justice of India, concluded, that there was no employment comparable to the employment held by those engaged by the Grih Kalyan Kendras, and therefore, they could not seek parity with employees, working either under the New Delhi Municipal Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the Union of India. (iv) Based on the aforesaid factual conclusion, this Court held, that the concept of equality implies and requires equal treatment, for those who are situated equally. Comparison between unequals is not possible. Since the workers who had approached this Court had fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly-rated workers were not required to possess the qualifications required for regular workers, nor did they have to fulfill the postulated requirement of age, at the time of recruitment. Daily-rated workers, it was felt, were not selected in the same manner as regular employees, inasmuch as, their selection was not as rigorous as that of employees selected on regular basis. This Court expressed the view, that there were also other provisions relating to regular service, such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subjected to disciplinary jurisdiction. It was pointed out, that daily-rated employees were not subjected to either of the aforesaid contingencies/consequences. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court held that the Respondents, who were employed on daily-wage basis, could not be equated with regular employees for purposes of their wages, nor were they entitled to obtain the minimum of the regular pay-scale extended to regular employees. This Court, however held, that if a minimum wage was prescribed for such workers, the Respondents would be entitled to it, if it was higher than the emoluments which were being paid to them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Respondents, either for regularization or for payment of wages at par with regular employees, it directed the State of Haryana to pay to the Respondents, the minimum pay in the scale of pay applicable to regular employees. The State of Haryana being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, approached this Court. (ii) While disposing of the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana, this Court accepted the contention advanced on its behalf, that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post. This Court also accepted, that a daily-wager holds no post. In view of the above factual/legal position, this Court arrived at the conclusion, that the prayer made by the Respondents before the High Court, that they be granted emoluments in the pay-scale of the regular employees, could not be acceded to. Since no material was placed before the High Court, comparing the nature of duties of either category, it was held, that it was not possible to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' could be invoked by the Respondents, to claim wages in the regular pay-scale. (iii) Despite having found that the Respondents were not eligible to claim wages in the regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , decided by a three-Judge bench: A large number of civil appeals were collectively disposed of by a common order. In all these appeals, the Respondents were daily-wagers, who were appointed as Ledger Clerks, Ledger Keepers, Pump Operators, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Fitters, Petrol Men, Surveyors, etc. All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under the pay-scale extended to regular Class-IV employees. The above relief was claimed with effect from the date of their initial appointment. It would be relevant to mention, that while the appeals disposed of by the common order were pending before this Court, all the Respondents were regularized. From the date of their regularization, they were in any case, being paid salary in the scales applicable to regular Class-IV employees. The limited question which came up for adjudication before this Court in the matters was, whether the directions issued by the High Court to pay the minimum wage in the scale payable to Class-IV employees to the Respondents, from the date of their filing the respective petition before the High Court, was required to be interfered with. While adjudicating upon the aforesaid issue, this Court made the following obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regards. In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective Writ Petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned matter, were appointed in different posts in the Public Health Department of the State of Punjab. All of them were admittedly appointed on daily-wage basis. Inter alia, because the Respondent-employees had put in a number of years of service, they were held by the High Court to be entitled to the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In the challenge raised before this Court, it was concluded as under: 36. With utmost respect, the principle, as indicated hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. We are bound by the decisions of larger Benches. This Court had been insisting on strict pleadings and proof of various factors as indicated hereto before. Furthermore, the burden of proof even in that case had wrongly been placed on the State which in fact lay on the writ Petitioners claiming similar benefits. The factual matrix obtaining in the said case particularly similar qualification, interchangeability of the positions within the regular employees and the casual employees and other relevant factors which have been noticed by us also had some role to play. Rather than determining whether or not the Respondents were entitled to any benefit under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solidated salary of ₹ 2000 per month, while the prescribed pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer in the other branches was ₹ 2200-4000, and that of Junior Engineer was ₹ 1600-2660, was sufficient to infer, that both the Respondents were engaged to work against the posts of Assistant Engineer. The Appellants were directed to pay emoluments to the Respondents, at the minimum of the pay-scale, prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer (as revised from time to time), from the date of their appointment, till they continued in the employment of the Corporation. 41. Surendra Nath Pandey v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2010) 12 SCC 400, decided by a two-Judge bench: The Appellants in the above mentioned case, were appointed during 1978 to 1981 on daily-wage basis, by the U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Upto 30.6.1981, they were paid daily-wages. From 1.7.1981, they were paid consolidated salary of ₹ 368 per month, which was increased to ₹ 575 per month with effect from 1.4.1982. From 1.7.1983, they were extended the benefit of minimum in the pay-scale applicable to regular employees, with allowances, but without yearly increments. Based on Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roof', of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see-the Orissa University of Agriculture Technology case (2003) 5 SCC 188, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452, the Steel Authority of India Limited case (2011) 11 SCC 122, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case (2014) 6 SCC 756). (ii) The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a different department vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government (see-the Randhir Singh case (1982) 1 SCC 618, and the D.S. Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 304). (iii) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see-the Orissa University of Agriculture Technology case (2003) 5 SCC 188). (vii) Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as-'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as-merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see-State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121). (viii) If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see-the Mewa Ram Kanojia case (1989) 2 SCC 235, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347). In such a cause, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. (ix) The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 225). (xiv) For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see-Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452). (xv) There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and Ors. working at the institutional/sub-office level (see-the Hukum Chand Gupta case (2012) 12 SCC 666), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. (xvi) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o took note of the fact, that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 304. (iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case (1987) 4 SCC 634 this Court recorded, that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain (-or had remained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned cadre. (vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three-Judge bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh MNU/SC/1808/1996 : (1996) 11 SCC 77, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, the Orissa University of Agriculture Technology case (2003) 5 SCC 188, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347, laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified. (viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337, based on decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had been invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd proof, that they were discharging similar duties and responsibilities, as were assigned to regular employees. Since they had not done so, the matter was remanded back to the High Court, for a re-determination on the above position. It is therefore obvious, that this Court had accepted, that where duties, responsibilities and functions were shown to be similar, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable, even to temporary employees (otherwise the order of remand, would be meaningless, and an exercise in futility). (vi) It is, therefore apparent, that in all matters where this Court did not extend the benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees, it was because the employees could not establish, that they were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding corresponding posts. 46. We have consciously not referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 (by a two-Judge division bench), in the preceding two paragraphs. We are of the considered view, that the above judgment, needs to be examined and explained independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', could not be denied to the Petitioners. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn on the ground, that as long as the Petitioners were performing similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis (on corresponding posts) from the standpoint of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', there could be no distinction on the subject of payment of wages. (iii) Having noticed the conclusion drawn in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77, it would be relevant to emphasise, that in the cited judgments (noticed in paragraph 26 onwards, upto paragraph 41), the employees concerned, could not have been granted the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (in such of the cases, where it was so granted), because temporary employees (daily-wage employees, in the said case) are never ever selected through a process of open selection, by a specialized selection body/agency. We would therefore be obliged to follow the large number of cases where pay parity was granted, rather than, the instant singular judgment recording a divergent view. (iv) Temporary employees (irrespective of their nome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nches, where the benefit of the principle in question was extended to temporary employees (including daily-wagers). (x) For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the claim of the Appellants cannot be considered, on the basis of the judgment in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77. 47. We shall now endeavour to examine the impugned judgments. 48. First and foremost, it is essential for us to deal with the judgment dated 11.11.2011 rendered by the full bench of the High Court (in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., CWP No. 14796 of 2003). A perusal of the above judgment reveals, that the High Court conspicuously focused its attention to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1. While dealing with the above judgment, the full bench expressed the view, that though at the first impression, the judgment appeared to expound that payment of minimum wages drawn by regular employees, had also to be extended to persons employed on temporary basis, but a careful reading of the same would show that, that was not so. Learned Counsel, representing the State of Punjab, reiterated the above position. In order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn from the judgment rendered by this Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1, the full bench of the High Court, placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514, and while doing so, reference was made to the following observations recorded in paragraphs 27 to 30 (of the said judgment). Learned Counsel for the State of Punjab has reiterated the above position. Paragraphs 27 to 30 aforementioned are being extracted hereunder: 27. While laying down the law that regularization under the constitutional scheme is wholly impermissible, the Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, had issued certain directions relating to the employees in the services of the Commercial Taxes Department, as noticed hereinbefore. The employees of the Commercial Taxes Department were in service for more than ten years. They were appointed in 1985-1986. They were sought to be regularized in terms of a scheme. Recommendations were made by the Director, Commercial Taxes for their absorption. It was only when such recommendations were not acceded to, the Administrative Tribunal was approached. It rejected their claim. The High Court, however, allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the Respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them. 30. We, therefore, do not see that any law has been laid down in para 55 of the judgment in Umadevi case. Directions were issued in view of the limited controversy. As indicated, the State's grievances were limited. Yet again, we are of the view, that the full bench erred in referrin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee as to whether the principles of law laid down herein viz. as to whether the Respondents satisfy the factors for invocation of the decision in State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321 in its entirety including the question of appointment in terms of the recruitment Rules have been followed. (iii) For all the above reasons, we are of the view, that the claim of the temporary employees, for minimum wages, at par with regularly engaged Government employees, cannot be declined, on the basis of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514. 50. The impugned judgment rendered by the full bench, also relied upon the judgment in Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 179, which also attempted to interpret the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned Counsel for the State of Punjab also referred to the same, to canvass the case of the State government. Relevant observations relied upon, are reproduced below: 7. We are of the view that the Appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The Appellants were only engaged o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agraph 53 aforementioned, is reproduced below: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Maysore v. S.V. Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507, and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment (passed by the full bench), reveals that the full bench carved an exception for employees who were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained continuous (with notional breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years. This category of temporary employees, was extended the benefit of wages at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006) 4 SCC 1, similarly, employees who had rendered 10 years service, were granted an exception (refer to paragraph 53 of the judgment, extracted in the preceding paragraph). The above position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the subject of regularization of employees, while adjudicating upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned Counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
