RAGHBEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he was employed in the Indian Grass land and Fodder Research Institute as Messenger on daily wage basis on 1st February 1985. The petitioner, apart from his work as messenger was also performing semi technical job of seed cleaning and catalouging. That the petitioner alongwith other casual labourers approached the employer respondent No. 3 for regularisation of his services, respondent No. 3., employer instead of acceding to the general demands started showing them the door by terminating their services and initiated process of employing fresh incumbents as casual labourers on daily wage basis. That no order of appointment was given to the petitioner, but he continues to work uninterruptedly for the last four years and claimed the pay equal to Nanak Singh employed working on the post of messenger against a time scale of 7509 -40 with other like benefits, allowances and leave facilities etc. on the principle of Equal pay for Equal work. The petitioner is being discriminated by respondent No. 3 and paid only a sum of Rs. 390/ - per month at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per day.

(2.) THROUGH the medium of this writ petition, the writ in the nature of mandamus is prayed commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner and be given pay equivalent to the pay of the employees working in the institute in the same cadre with like benefits, all allowances and other facilities, admissibility to the regular Government Employees.

(3.) RESPONDENTS in their counter on the other hand submitted that Indian Grass land and redder Research Institute, is one of the concern Council Indian research society, registered under Registration societies Act and as such is not a state within the amplitude of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thus, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. It was denied that the petitioner ever came to be appointed as messenger. He was engaged only as a daily paid labourer for cleaning the office and burning of Bhukharies and doing other petty jobs. The petitioner was never handing over semi technical or technical work except cleaning the seeds, rendering help as was done by other labourers. That their job is technical and therefore, cannot be done by labourer(s) including the petitioner. It was however, admitted that experience certificate was issued to the petitioner on his request to enable him to apply for a job in other departments. That the petitioner continues to work in the department and the management does not intend to disengage him. He has -been engaged only as a labourer on daily wages basis and in such event no order of appointment could be issued in his favour, nor can be paid any equivalence to what is paid to Nanak Singh a permanent employee of the Institution. That the petitioner is being paid at the rate of Rs. 18/ - per day since April 1989, as a casual labourer, assigned petty works from time to time, and thus, is neither vested with legal nor statutory right to continue or for seeking regularisation of his services.