SARDARI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in 1982 as a daily wager and is still continuing. The petitioner claims equal pay for equal work at par with the employees who are performing the same duties as the petitioner though against permanent posts. There is no dispute that the petitioner is performing the same duties as are being performed by washing boys of Punjab Roadways working on regular basis either against temporary or a permanent posts. On our repeatedly asking as to whether the petitioner is working against temporary or a permanent post, learned state Counsel states that since no appointment letter has been annexed with the record he cannot say anything against which post the petitioner is working. The learned counsel for the state is unable to controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working against an existing vacancy. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the petitioner was appointed as far back as in 1982 it is fairly comprehend able that the petitioner is working against a regular post or at least against an existing vacancy either on temporary or permanent basis. It would be totally arbitrary if the petitioner is denied equal pay for equal work at par with the employees who are performing same duties. Our this view is further supported by the decision in Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P., 1986 (1) SCC 637 . Surindra Singh Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, 1986(1) S.L.R. 435 . and Krishan Lal Vs. G.M. Haryana Roadways, 1989(1) S.L.R. 613 .

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has cited Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. National Mineral Development Corporation, 1990(3) SLR 11 (SC) . in order to contend that daily wager is not entitled to regular pay scale. The precedent cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is not relevant in this case as in that case workers were employed on daily wage basis for a short time and were rendered surplus and posts were not available with the Department. It is not so in the case in hand. The present case is fully covered by the law laid down in 1986 (1) SCC 637 (supra).

(3.) In view of the observations made above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay scale to the petitioner at par with the employees who are performing same duties on regular basis. Since the petition has approached this Court after a lapse of 10 years, the ends of justice would be met if he is given regular pay scale from the date of filing the writ petition. Petition allowed.