PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJ & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 & 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and in the matter of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined in the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Sweeper by respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Computer Centre at Jaipur in terms of order dated 7th January, 1983 initially for a period of 3 months. Thereafter the petitioner continued to perform his duties satisfactorily in pursuance of the various orders issued by respondent No. 3 from time to time. The petitioner has also mentioned in the petition a tabular statement indicating the position in terms of the various appointment orders issued with effect from 7th January, 1983 to 20th June, 1990. A perusal of the said chart reveals that the services of the petitioner were taken by the respondents during the aforesaid period in different phases ranging from 3 months to maximum of 6 months. The emoluments of pay have also been varying from time to time, the minimum being Rs. 100/- per month and the maximum being Rs. 200/- per month, which was increased with effect from 20th June, 1994 vide Annex-24. From a perusal of the said statement it is clearly apparent that the petitioner has rendered continuous service with the respondents with effect from 7th January, 1983 till date and all-through he has been working as Sweeper and treated as temporary unskilled employee. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid emoluments which the petitioner has been drawing from time to time, are not in consonance with the salary which is being actually paid and admissible to Class-IV employees appointed as Sweepers in the Police Department. According to the petitioner the minimum pay-scale which is being paid to the temporary unskilled employees is Rs. 700/- per month and that the petitioner who has continuously served the respondents with effect from 7th January, 1983 till date is entitled to be given the minimum pay-scale as admissible to Class-IV employees as per scale No. 1 of Class IV servants i.e. Rs.700/- per month. The petitioner has further prayed for regularisation of his services as Class-IV employee, with effect from the due date. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated in the pay scale emoluments qua the similarly situated persons since the nature of work is similar and identical to that of other persons performing same duties in the Police Department itself, hence the differentiation in the matter of pay-scale is not based on an intelligible differentia, hence the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to receive the same salary as the conditions of service governing the petitioner in the regularly appointed Class-IV servants is not in any way different than applicable to the case of the petitioner.

(2.) During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner who has put in more than 11 years of service with the Police Department has not yet been regularised and is still continuing on contingency basis.

(3.) A perusal of the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents clearly reveals that the respondents have arbitrarily denied the regular pay-scale to the petitioner and have further not regularised the services of the petitioner on the plea that there is neither regular sanctioned post of Sweeper in the office of the respondents nor the petitioner was required to attend the office throughout the day. It is surprising to note that the petitioner, who rendered services for more than 11 years should be kept at the mercy of the respondents in this arbitrary manner on the vague plea as aforesaid. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties since the date of his appointment though the temporary appointment was given to the petitioner subject to the availability of the contingency funds. This fact is borne out from the reply filed by the respondents in para 3 to the reply. It has been further contended by the respondents in para 6 of the reply that the persons holding regular appointment on the posts are required to attend the office throughout the day whereas the petitioner was required to work only for 3-1/2 hours during the day and after that the petitioner was free to do his personal work. This contention is prima facie irrelevant as the same is not borne out from any documentary evidence on the record.