KULBHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is yet another illustration of fraud which is being played by the public authorities on the public exchequer by appointing daily-wagers, continuing them for years together and thereby giving them a cause to seek redress in the Courts in the form of a mandamus for regularisation of their services. In the process the basic objective stipulated in the preamble of the Constitution is defeated.

(2.) Before we dilate further on the subject, a brief reference to the facts of the case would be useful. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Naraingarh, district Ambala, with effect from 17.8.1991 on the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, and since then he has been regularly working as Mali-cum-Chowkidar. Petitioner says that after having completed two years service, he has acquired a right to be regularised in service in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, 1992(4) S.L.R. 770 . Petitioner has also claimed that according to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India, he has a right to be paid salary in the regular pay scale of Rs.750-940 because he is discharging duties similar to the duties being discharged by other persons engaged in the service on regular basis. Petitioner's claim is that there is no difference, quantitative or qualitative, in the nature of duties required to be performed by regular and daily-waged employees and, therefore, there is no justification to deny benefit of equal wages to those who are appointed otherwise than on regular basis. Yet another statement made by the petitioner is that 58 costs of Mali-cum-Chowkidars have been sanctioned by the Government vide letter Uated 19.4.1994 and one of such posts has been sanctioned in the Naraingarh Block. At the same time, order dated 26.4.1994 has been issued terminating his services after he has rendered over two years and 6 months of service. The petitioner says that while terminating his services, respondent No.4 has not complied with the mandatory requirements contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents who have in their reply pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularised in service because as per the Government policy contained in circular dated 27.5.1993 only those daily-waged or work-charged employees are entitled to be regularised who have served for a period of 5 years as on 31.3.1993 and on the basis of less than two years of service as on 31.3.1993 the petitioner can make no claim to be regularised in service. Respondents have also pleaded that although one sanctioned post at Naraingarh Block is available, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation of services as a matter of right. It has also been pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner who is merely a daily-wager cannot claim a right to be paid salary in the regular pay-scale.