OM PATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition contains a prayer for grant of regularization and for regular scales of pay to the petitioners who had gained their appointment on daily wage basis and who according to the petitioners are holding on to the posts as anganwari workers for more than 30 years.

(2.) THE writ petition canvassing for a similar point decided in Smt. Om Vati and others Versus The State of Haryana and others in CWP No.3288 of 1989, dated 08.08.2007. The court had held, applying the principle of law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1that a backdoor appointee shall not obtain regularization irrespective of number of years of service which he had put in. The judgment in Uma Devi had allowed for regularization on one time basis of persons who had been appointed to vacant posts which were sanctioned if they had continued for a period of 10 years.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would argue that he will have no quarrel with the proposition brought through the decision in Om Vati applying Uma Devi's dispensation but he would still plead that although they are not entitled to be regularized since their initial entry was not in accordance with law, they should be granted the regular scales by application of the principle of 'same work, same pay'. The counsel would rely on a Full Bench ruling of this court in the batch of writ petitions in CWP No.14796 of 2003, decided on 11.11.2011 -Avtar Singh Versus State of Punjab and others that raised the issue of whether a work -charged/daily wage employee was entitled to minimum basic wage or dearness allowance or regular pay that they were doing the same work and performing the same duty as the incumbents holding regular sanctioned posts. The plea was a complaint of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Full Bench answered the reference setting out that a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee shall not be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale merely for reasons that the physical activity carried out by the daily wager and regular employee was similar. The Full Bench, however, recognized three exceptions and the learned senior counsel would attempt his case as falling within anyone of the exceptions. The exceptions are as follows: