RAJNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to be in the service of respondents holding various posts as daily wagers specified in the petitions from the years ranging between 1979 till date, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of appropriate direction commanding the respondents to regularise their services with all consequential benefits. It is submitted that various representations made by the petitioners were delayed and no effective relief was granted. It is contended that vide Govt. Order No. 93-F of 1989 dated April 3, 1989 the daily wages of daily wage workers were increased from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 18/-per day and vide endorsement No. C-Admn-DGM-Wages-1/355 dated May 1, 1989 various categories of daily wage labourers were directed to be paid wages at the rates mentioned therein with effect from April 1, 1989 as recommended by the committee constituted for the purpose. It was further directed that increments with three years minimum service as skilled and semiskilled labourers be allowed at the enhanced rates. In the year 1987, the respondent Senior Geologist vide his Circular issued on May 26, 1987 asked the petitioners to submit their bio-datas in the envisaged proforma supported with documentary evidence with a view to process their cases for regularisation. All the petitioners are stated to have done the needful but no orders were passed forcing the petitioners to approach this Court for the grant of appropriate relief. It is submitted that as the petitioners were continuously in service of the respondents they have a right to be absorbed and appointed on regular basis. The daily wages paid are meagre and not commensurate with the work performed. The action of the respondents violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work" amounting to violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On account of the lapse of the respondents majority of the petitioners was likely to become over aged being ineligible to be employed in any other department of the Government. Some of the employees of the respondents filed writ petition entitled Garu Ram and Ors. v. State and Ors. (W. P. No. 604/90) which was allowed by this Court and the petitioners therein granted appropriate relief after the respondents exhausted all the remedies for setting aside the judgment of this Court.

(2.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as no fundamental or legal right of the petitioners has been violated the petitions were liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the circumstances under which Garu Ram's judgment supra was passed, were different. After the judgment was announced, the respondent State examined the cases of the writ-petitioners and came to the conclusion that they could not be regularised in terms of the relevant law prevalent on the subject. As the Court directions were not complied with, contempt petitions were filed in this Court when it was made clear that the judgment in Garu Ram's case was a judgment in personum and applied only to the petitioners, same was complied with. The command issued in Garu Ram's case could not be made applicable in the case of the petitioners herein who are alleged to be not having any legal right for regularisation. A daily wager's service is not a service which could be regularised under law. The petition is stated to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in the Geology and Mining Department the daily wagers are engaged as per requirements in the area in which the need arises as the department consists of various units and mostly exploration job and mineral investigations are conducted in far-flung areas for the execution of which casual labour is required in different fields and field units. The daily wagers are engaged purely on daily wage basis and are paid according to the work done by them. It is not denied that the writ-petitioners are in continuous service of the respondents from the years mentioned by each one of them. It is denied that any bio-data of the petitioners was asked for as claimed by them and any promise or any commitment was ever made to regularise their services. Regularisation of the daily wager depends upon the availability of the post and finance with the State. There has not been any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the petitioners could not equate themselves with the regular employees or those who have been regularised vide Annexure R2, dated May 15, 1992. It is clear that the writ petitions are misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.