STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NATHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal by the State of Haryana against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 19, 1996, by which the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed and a direction was issued to the State Government to pay to the writ petitioners the pay scales and other allowances as were being given and admissible to regular workmen on the same posts as the writ petitioners were working. However, the arrears were limited to a period of three years and two months from the date of the filing of the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be noticed. The private respondents herein (writ petitioners), thirty-eight in number, had been appointed on daily wage basis in the Haryana Roadways either as helpers, Sweepers, Peons or Chowkidars between the period January, 1979, to August, 1988. They were given appointments for a particular fixed period but their services were being extended from time to time. The fact remains that they remained daily wagers. They were being paid on the basis of daily rates determined by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. Similar categories of employees, who were employed on regular basis in the corresponding cadre, were drawing regular pay scales and wages exceeding the wages which the petitioners were getting. They claimed parity of pay with those of regular employees as, according to them, they were discharging the same duties, functions and responsibilities as were being discharged by the regular employees. Learned Single Judge primarily relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 879 and Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1970, allowed the writ petition and held that the daily wagers were entitled to the same pay as was being drawn by the regular employees of the identical cadre. This necessitated the filing of the present appeal by the State of Haryana. The Motion Bench while admitting the appeal on September 27, 1996, stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the daily wage workers cannot equate themselves for the purpose of pay scale with the regular employees. Daily wage workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers and other qualifications like age etc. Their recruitment is also different when compared to the recruitment of the regular employees. They are not subjected to any disciplinary control as regular employees. The quality of work is also different. He relied upon a judgment of the apex Court reported as State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., Judgments Today 1996(10) S.C. 876. In this case, all the previous case law as also the law laid down in Randhir Singh's case (supra) was discussed. In that case, a similar relief had been granted by a Division Bench of this Court to the daily wagers as has been given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal. On appeal by the State of Haryana to the apex Court, it was held that those persons who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated at par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily rented workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers nor they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. The requirements of selection of daily wagers cannot equate themselves with regular workmen for the purpose of their wages nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed persons. The apex Court further observed that the quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. The evaluation of such jobs as done by daily wagers and regular employees for the purpose of pay scales must be left to expert bodies and unless there are any malafides its evaluation should be accepted.