STATE OF U.P. Vs. PRABHU NARAIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D. K. Upadhya, Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Sinha, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh alongwith Sri Shishir Jain for the appellants and Sri A.M. Tripathi, Sri D. K. Tripathi and Sri V. K. Shukla, Counsel for the respondents. At the out -set it may be mentioned that in few appeals, there was a delay in filing the Special Appeal and as the sufficient cause has been shown, the delay is hereby condoned.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, Prabhu Narain Sharma and 52 others, respondents/writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 5505 (SS) of 1999 inter alia praying for quashing of the Government Order dated 26.8.1999. Several other writ petitions with the same relief were also filed. All these identical writ petitions were clubbed together and were allowed by the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 and the G.O. Dated 26.8.1999 whereby the fixed amount of amount of Dearness Allowance payable to work -charge employees was quashed. A number of other writ petitions claiming benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 were also filed and the same were disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. The State Government as well as the Corporation being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 5505 (SS) of 1999:Prabhu Narain Sharma and 52 others vs. State of U.P. and others as also in other identical writ petitions, preferred Special Appeals. Similarly, Bridge Corporation has also filed Special Appeals, assailing the order of learned Single Judge extending the benefits of judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 to the work -charge employees of the Corporation.

(3.) THE question "Are work charged employees entitled to dearness allowance on par with regular employees on the ground that they are performing the same work and duties, which are being performed by regular employees and, as such, entitled to 'equal pay for equal work' and consequently is the Government Order dated 26.08.1999 illegal?