CHIEF OFFICER Vs. ARSIBHAI RAMBHAI KACHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, appellant herein (original respondent No.4) has challenged the common oral judgment dtd. 7/3/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petitions, by which, learned Single Judge has held that the present respondents (original petitioners) are entitled to the minimum pay-scale of the posts equivalent to which, the petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis as would be available to a corresponding regularly employed employee of a Municipality on the corresponding post that too from the date of filing of the petition that is from 1/4/2021.

(2.) The respondents-employees who are working with the appellant - Municipality either as Clerk/Computer Operator, Senior/Head Clerk, Shop Inspector, Clerk in Electrical Department, Recovery Department, Sanitation Department and Registry Department between 2003-2010 were paid as a daily wager, filed petitions before this Court requesting this Court to direct the Municipality for regular pay-scale on the post of Clerk in Recovery/Civic Branch, mainly on the ground that though the appellant-Municipality has different permanent sanctioned posts for Clerks etc. since 2003, all the employees are treated as daily wagers and paid accordingly. The appellant- Municipality, i.e. original respondent No.4 in the petition filed affidavit and opposed the relief prayed by the petitioners which was confronted by the petitioners by way of filing rejoinder. Learned Single Judge after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and facts of the case, partly allowed the petitions. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant - Municipality submits that learned Single Judge has committed error in directing the appellant - Municipality to grant minimum of the pay-scale of the post equivalent to which the petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis as would be available to a corresponding regularly employed employee working with the Municipality since there are no regular employees appointed by the Municipality. He submits that only one employee who is working in the permanent post was appointed by Commissioner of Municipality as Sanitary Inspector Class-III and not by the Municipality, therefore, the case of the respondents (ori. petitioners) cannot be compared by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the learned Single Judge has committed error in appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors . reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. By taking us to paragraph 60 of the said judgment, he submits that it has been categorically held that " the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post". In the present case there is no regular employee and therefore, the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case would not be applicable. By relying upon the recent decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh thru Principal Secretary & Ors. vs. Seema Sharma in Civil Appeal No.3892 of 2022, in para 18 submits that the question is reiterated that 'equal pay for equal work' would only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Here it is not the case. He further submits that the appointment of the respondents are not in accordance with law and therefore they are not entitled to the relief prayed for. He, therefore, submits that appeals be allowed.