LAWS(SC)-2000-12-3

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TALWINDER SINGH

Decided On December 13, 2000
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
Talwinder Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the state's letters patent appeal and affirming the conclusion and direction of the learned single judge. These respondents have been working as daily-wagers under the PWD Public Health department. They filed the writ petition claiming that they are entitled to get the same scale of pay as their counterparts on regular basis are getting inasmuch as they are discharging the same type of duties and they possess the same prescribed qualifications. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion on assessment of the duty discharged by those respondents that they have been discharging similar duties as those of their counterparts in regular employment, but yet instead of applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, namely, prescribing the scale of pay for these daily-wagers, directed that they would get the minimum in the scale of pay as is available for their counterparts in the regular establishment. The learned single Judge also further directed that they should get this for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The Division Bench has affirmed the aforesaid conclusion and direction of the learned single Judge. The learned single judge as well as the Division Bench have relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh 1998 (9) SCC 595. The aforesaid decision undoubtedly applies with full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, however, contended that the decision of this Court in Devinder Singh (supra) has not noticed the earlier decision of a two-Judge Bench in the case of State of haryana v. Jasmer Singh AIR 1997 SC 1988 : 1996 (11) SCC 77 : 1997-II-LLJ-667 whereunder this Court, after elaborate discussion of several earlier decisions of this court and on a comparison of the duties discharged by the daily-wagers, has come to the conclusion that such daily-wagers even cannot claim the minimum of regular pay scale of the regularly employed. This decision obviously has not been brought to the notice of the Court while disposing of Devinder Singh case (supra). But it appears from the judgment in Jasmer Singh case (supra) that the Court came to the same conclusion possibly because of the fact that in the matter of discharge of duties by those daily-wagers it came to the finding that they do not discharge similar duties as those of the regularly employed people as well as they do not possess the same qualifications as those of the regularly employed people. This being the position and devinder Singh case (supra) squarely covering the case in hand, we are not inclined to refer this matter to a larger Bench. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment following the decision of this Court in Devinder singh (supra) granting of minimum in the scale of pay of a regular employee. But the further direction that they will get this relief for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition cannot be sustained in any view of the matter. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order directing payment at the minimum of regular scale of pay for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. This civil appeal is accordingly allowed in part. In view of the disposal of the appeal, there is no necessity to pass any order on the application for modification of the Court's order filed by the State of Punjab.