RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioners who are working as Ticket Verifiers on daily wage basis since 1988 with the Haryana Roadways with a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay salary to them (petitioners) in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 which is paid to Ticket Verifiers who are employed on regular basis and further the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation.

(2.) THE first relief, as mentioned above, is based on principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C. W. P. No. 17741 of 1991. Smt. Neelam Rani v. State of Haryana rendered on April 28, 1992. The Motion Bench had some reservations about the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment and admitted the case to Full Bench. That is how we are seized of this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited another Division Bench judgment in C. W. P. No. 9192 of 1995 (Rajkumar v. State of Haryana) rendered on November 23, 1995. The Division Bench after noticing the judgments in Randhir Singh v. U. O. I (1982-I-LLJ-344) (SC); P. Savita v. U. O. I. AIR 1985 SC 1124; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. , (1986-I-LLJ-134) (SC ). Surinder Singh v. Engineer in chief, (1986-I-LLJ-403) (SC), Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049 : Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1994-III-LLj (Suppl)-972) (SC), V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1989-II-LLJ-169) (SC), State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia, (1989-I-LLJ-309) (SC) and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India, (1991-I-LLJ-349) (SC), held that the daily wagers were entitled to the same salary as a regularly appointed person on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It was also observed that the same salary would mean minimum of the pay scale prescribed for a post held by the regular employees. Further, the petitioner also relied upon the same authorities of the Apex Court as were noticed by the aforesaid Division Bench in C. W. P. No. 9192 of 1995.

(3.) In the case of State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia (supra) this Court again sounded a note of caution. It pointed out that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, these qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the case before the Court, the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad claimed the same pay as Section Officers. While negativing this claim the Court said that in service matters merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It observed that although all Bench Secretaries may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Bench Secretaries (Grade I) are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. A higher pay scale granted to such Bench Secretaries who are evaluated by a competent authority cannot be challenged.