GIRDHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7784, 9610, 10480, 9628, 12264, 12265, 12266, 7616, 7617, 9957, 7754, 8085, 8183, 9088, 9067, 9867, 9073, 9089, 110198, 10199, 8096 and 10130 of 1995 as it has been conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the facts in all the petitions are almost identical and the question of law involved is common. However, for the purposes of this judgment, the facts have been derived from C.W.E No.7784 of l995.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions have been employed in the regular Department of the respondent-State on daily wage basis on the posts of Beldar, Peon, W.P.O., M.C.C., Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Helper, Fitters etc. They have prayed for the grant of pay scale which is being paid to the regular employees of the respondent-State working on the same posts. It is submitted that for the various establishment activities, the respondent-State need thousands of hands every day for which instead of appointing unemployed youth on regular basis, the practice of appointing persons on daily wage basis has been resorted to with the result that the persons like the petitioners, some of whom are continuously working for the period ranging from 10 years to two years, have been deprived of the benefit of payment of the salary which is being paid to their counter-parts working on regular basis. For instance, the petitioners have referred to the pay scale of beldars and have submitted that when the regular employees holding such posts are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.750-940, the petitioners working on the aforesaid post as daily wagers were getting only Rs.700- 800 per month. It is submitted that the Baildars on regular pay scales do not get less than Rs.2,000/- p.m. which includes the allowances permissible to such posts. The petitioners have claimed of doing the same job with similar responsibilities and under similar working conditions in the same department.

(3.) Reply has been filed only in Civil Writ Petition No.8085 of 1995. It has, however, been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that as the facts in all these petitions are identical and the point of law is common, the written statement filed in C.W.P. No.8085 of 1995 be treated as the reply in all these writ petitions.