ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions can appropriately be disposed of by a common order because they raise an identical question for determination by the Court. Before coming to the legal issue, it is proper to set out a few facts.

(2.) ALL the petitioners in the two petitions were appointed in the service of Punjab Roadways as Ticket Verifiers. Of them petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9030 of 1988 were regularised with effect from 15. 1. 1986 while petitioners No. 7 to 11 in the said petition were regularised with effect from 21. 3. 1986. Two of the thirteen petitioners namely Smt. Narinder Kaur and Smt. Neelam Kumari were! employed as Ticket Verifier on compassionate ground because their husbands had died while in the service of Punjab Roadways. At the time of entry into service; the petitioners were paid as daily wagers and even after regularisation, petitioners No. 1 to 11 in CWP No. 9030 of 1988 continued to be paid as daily wagers. The petitioners have claimed that as Ticket Verifier, they have been discharging duties which are identical to the duties being performed by holders of corresponding posts in the service of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Haryana Roadways Transport Corporation and even though employees of these two agencies are being paid salary in the regular time scale, they are being paid as daily wagers. They have stated that as Ticket Verifiers, they perform the duties of checking the ticket books checking of advance ticket dockets issued to the conductors, stamping of way bilk etc. Their further duties are to ensure that copies of the tickets of all denominations are issued to the Sub-stock Incharge of the Depot and that conductors of the buses get tickets of all the States through which the buses of the Punjab Roadways pass. The petitioners, have given detail of the quantum of duties which they perform every day but it is not necessary to give details of these duties because the respondents have not contested this part of the statement contained in the writ petition. The petitioners have pleaded that notwithstanding similarity in the nature of duties performed by them, benefit of principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has not been extended to them and in this manner they have been discriminated. Another plea of the petitioners is that after regularisation of service, there is no justification for paying them salary as daily wagers. Reference has been made to an order dated February 17, 1988 passed by this Court in CPW No. 4743 of 1986, Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana wherein this Court has held that Ticket Verifiers are entitled to be paid salary in the regular time scale. For petitioners No. 12 and 13, an additional plea has been raised namely that even though they have rendered sufficiently long service, respondents have not taken any step for regularisation of their service. In the other writ petition, pleadings are almost identical except that although decision for regularisation of services of the petitioners had been taken by a duly constituted selection committee, that decision has not been effectively implemented by the respondents.

(3.) THE first and foremost issue which requires determination is as to whether the petitioners have been discriminated and their right of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 has been infringed by respondents by continuing them as daily wagers and by denying them benefit of principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The second issue which requires determination is as to whether the respondents are. justified in withholding regularisation of service of petitioners No. 12 and 13 in CWP No. 9030 of 1988 and petitioners in CWP No. 8959 of 1989.