9 71 4 jl il NP NO116 of2009 etc 1 IN THE lllGH COURT OF PUNJAIl AND HARYANA AT 1 CIIANDICARII ll r DATE OF DECISION91009 1 4 0 1CWP NO116 of2009 Il 1 0 Rajindcr Kumar and others Petitioncrs 0 r VERSUS C5 Stateof Punjab S4Others Rcspondents 2CWP N013772 of2008 Z TejPalSingli and others Petitioners b W r 4 VERSUS I Stateof Punjab Olllcrs IlesIItIntIcnIs 08 3CWP Noe7853of 1999 r10 J 4 Jaswinder Singhetce Pct itio n ers W4 Z VERSUS CL State of Punjab etce cspondents 4CWP No12553 of 1999 Daan Singh and others Petitioners 1 e VERSUS Stateof Punjab Si Others Respondents 5CWP No19195 of211118 Manjit Singh and othcrs Pctitioners 9 VERSUS Stateof Punjab Si Others Resiltllldelils 9 6CWP Noe5461of2009 Narinder Singhand others ePetitioticrs Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 e 1111 7VP NO116 of2009 etc 7 1 VERSUS StateofPunjabS Otliers 2cspondents 1 7CWP Nol7 0f2009 JagjitSingh and otlIers Petitioners 1 j VERSUS r State ofPunjab Others Respondents 0 8CWP N05472 of2009 J 0 Hira Lal and othcrs Petitioners I C5 VERSUS r r StateofPunjab Others Respondents Z 9CWP Noe82of2003 01 m Bhola Singh and othcrs Petitioncrs t VERSUS 5 StateofPunjab8 Others Respondents 1 0 N0015217of2008 1 Subhash Chand andothers etitioners 1 1 VERSUS StateofPunjab 2k Others eIlespondents 11CWP No15204 of2008 Raj Kumar and others Petitioners J VERSUS Stateof Punjab Others 2CWP No19726 of2008 Makhan Singh and others Pctitioners VERSUS StateofPunjab Others of2003 Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 73 CWP NO16 of2009 etco 3 Hans Raj and others etitioners VERSUS 1 State ofPunjab Si Others 2espondents 14CWP No16772 of 2008 Shinder Pal and othcrs ePetitionerS m VERSUS L StateofPunjab Si Others Respondents 0 0 I CORAM C5 I HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Cr Z 5 PRESENT MrLArora MiIDainllli MtGSBtll MlRSMlilllls Mr2amesh Goel MrLSalnmi MrLSaillini C Advocates for thepetitioner Cr I MsCharu Tuli SrDAG Punjabfor respondents 08 Permod Kohli Je CO Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these lIril Wn3 Z petitionsthe same are disposed of bythis commOll order For the sakeof tle brevityfactsare beingtaken Oom CWP NoIl6 of2009 The in thesepetitions are working on daily wagebasis lll differentcapacities itl the Stateof Punjabparticularlythe of 7 WaterSupplyand Sanitation The prayers in all thesepctitions are for gratll of wages at the 111Ill 1lll ll Ill ofthc paV scale as reviscd Ironl tirllc to Iillle alongwithailowances and arrears of salarylor a pcriodof threeycors precedingthefllingofthe writ pelltions The petitloners had earlier filed CWP No 1121 1 of 2002 which calllC to bedisposcd ofvidc order dated22 I l 2007 wilh a dircctitlii to respondent noSuperintending Engineer V1 Public l1calllln iWS Citcle Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 a INP NO116 of2009 etc 4 Gurdaspur to lake a dccision Oll thc iSSlICllllltlIvcd kcejingIll VICIN thc 1 decision renderedby the Cotirl ii1 lhc case 0f SeerctllryState f Karnataka vse Uma Dcviand others2006 SLR l bypassinga well reasonedspeakingorders within SiX IllOnthsfroin the date of receiptof a certified copy of the order On the basis 01 the aforesaid ordcr the EngineerWater Supplyand Sanitation Circle Ludhiana m C vide his order dated252008 Annexure l allcgedlyrejcctedlllc cliliill 0 of the petitioners for regularisation at this stage lt has been held thal under 5 the Government Policy dated 151 22006 the regularizatlollis to be 0 I orderedon compltionof 10 years or more serVlCO strictlyaccording to their seniorityin the concerned categoryagainstthe available regular Z sanctionedvacant postswith thc Ocparlinciitl l Ilas bccll IllClllitlllctl IlllIl 0 has been made in different categoriesagainstthe available I O vacancies For PumpOperatorsRegularization has been tnade upto 638 0 for Mali Cum Chowkidar uplo 570 and 17IrIitlcr Coollc upltl 72 01 lllc 7 senorilylist whereas the nuinbers are inuch below and lhe 0 petitioners case will be considered as andwhen their turn comes according to their seniorityIt is further stateclthat none ofthe juniorpersonslo lhe 1 petitionershavebeen regularized Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehelllentlyarguedtllat the claim of the petitionersin the aforesaid writ joctitionswas not for regularizationbut ior thc grailtol lllc Illiililllliill ol tllc piIy scalc wllicll Ills been extcnded to simiIarlysituated pcrsonsand Iargenumbcr of persons engagedOll dailywage basis later 111t11110lhail the joetitiollers htlvc beCIl granted such beneflts while denyingthe same treatmenl to the joetilioilers This fact is also evident froin paragraphone of thc 1udgnlenldalcd Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 17PNO16 of2009 etCe 5 7P 221 12007 passedin CWP No 11211of 2002 lllcd by lhe llc have accordingly Oled this petitioilchallcnging the aft1rcsaid 1 order 4nnexureP12 and havesoughtthe relief for thegrant01 wagcs al theminimum of the pay scale In all the other petitionsalso the relief is or grantof wages at the lllllllmUlll of the pay scalc The petitioners haverelied uponvarious ofthis Court and the Honble SuprelneCourtirlicr 1 r passed 0 Howeverthe claim oflhe petitioncrsisopposcdand resistetlby tllc C I respondents on the groundthat the are not entitled to thc same C0 wages as are grantedto the regularlyappointed enlployees of thc State IvlsCharu Tuli learnedcounsel for the has subtnitted that 111 Z thelightofthe judginent ofthe Honble Suprenle Court in the caseof Unla a Devi 6supralthe petitionersare not entitled to be regularisedIt IltlS I further been argued on behalf of the thal bygrantingsimilar 08 12 pay scaleswould alnount to treating the uneqtialswith equalswhich itself e7 1S In contraventi on to the provisions of Articl cs 14 and 16 of the Z Constitutionof India 41 I have heardlearned counselfor thepartiesIt is not disputed that the 1 petitioners are workingin varlous capacities as PunlpOperatorsMaecl 1 Chawkidar Fitter Coolie Fitter Helper Store Munshi and on such othcr C capacities lt is admittedpositionthat the petitioners clre WOrking otl dai wagebasis for the last nunlbcr of ycars lll SCllllC CUSCS IlllIy l7Clllclre lllllll lWO decades It is pleaded 111the writ petitionthat there is group of thousandsof elnployeesworklngon dailywagcbasis in the Statc of PunjabThe duties and responsibilities of thc cmploycesin tllcir respecllvecategorlesare same TheyperfOrlnidentical functionsand share Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 8P NO16 of2009 etc 6 similar responsibil itieSeEveil lhe dlitics Illlongstlhc cillployccsI l l categonesare llltercllanged1heyarc t11tlle slillc SltIt Sl Wise seniority lists have been for di lYerentcategories aild all tlle petttioners11Cborllc oil thc joint seniorityIists A Itlrgetluillllci tI clil wagers even later in time stand regularized whereas othersare gettingminimum of pay scale under vanous of this court and c1 the Honble ApexCourt The havereferredto a largeiluillbei ol 0 passedby Honble Supremc Court and this Colirt Soine of such 0 are noticed hereunder 9 ln the case of State of PunjabSi Othcrs VS Devinder Singh82 Z 01hersCivil AppealNoA492 of 1997 dccided on 217019979 the Z HonbleSupremc Courthasmadc obscrvtIlitIllSl 2 0 64 ln ourlview thc principleof E1l12IlPay Iur tt C EqualWork can ensure to the respondents to thc 5 1 1iinited extent lhat Ivlleri theyWerc louild to 11i11C beengivingsiinilar work as ledger Keeperstheycould have been paidthe of the pay scale of a LcdgciKccperI4hicll WIS available to regularly appointed Ledger Clerks Learned counsel for the COllld tlol slicccssI ully ctlillcild tl1iil SllClli111ordcr slltIulcl iItll Illc lleclI IlttssclIVt thereforc allow this appealto the Iimilei extclll thatthoughthe are held limited on tle principle of EqualPay for l7qualWork to get the salaryavaiIable to thc l cdgci KccpcrsIlcdcr Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 4 P NP NO16 of2009 etc 7 Clerks who are rcgularly recruited theywould be 1 entitledto the noinimuInof the pay scale of the LedgerKeeperswllich inay bc available to thc regularlyappointed LedgerKeepersand they 1 cannot be paidthe runningtime sca le as theyWere not regularlyappointed as Ledger r Clcrks 99 0 On the basis of the aforesaidjudglnentCWP No 10017 of C 1995 was decided vide judgmentdated 20 1998 p8ssedby this Court C5 wherein followingobservationshave beenmade I 44Accordingly I allow the wnt petitionand direct the Z to pay the minlllluIn pay scale to the 0 petltioners as lS available to lhe rcgularOclroI Clcrks with permissibleallowances on the basis and the 08 Qo dilYerencebetweenthe cllloluillcilts iilrcadypiliclItl cIcll 7 ofthe petitioners shall be paidfor a periodoffhree years Z priorto thefilingof the writ petitlOll 1 from 1221992 Om The arrea SO calculaled shall be paidwithin four lnonths There will be no order as to costs 71 A similar order calne to be passedbyHonble Supreme Court ill tlle C caseof NagarPanchayatBhikhiwind Vse Kuihir Singh Others ivil AppealNo87911999 decidcd Oll 30319991wherein it hasbccn obscrvcd as underl 66Respondentsare cinployees uilder tllc the High Court lor lhc rclicl thal Ihcy are entitlcd to the scale of pay as is available t Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 Il 2WP NO116 of2009 etce 8 regular ill lhc scalcThc 7 learned SingleJudgegranled he said relief Oil appeallhe Division Beilch hascoille to conclllSlOll that there is no justitlcation lo interlere with thc order of the learned SingleJudge but further clarified that so far as the arrears are concerned 1 C2 the would be entitlcd to draw at lhc 0 minimum ofthe scaleofpayfor a periodof3 years C I priorto dateofthe fllingofthe writ petition 91 C5 A Division Bench of thisCourt allowed CWP No7807 of 1999 on 1422000 relyingupon the above mentionedjudgments and made following Z observations C 66 The doctrine of equalpay Itlr 01 1211 lnVtlrk I enshrined Ill Article 39dl of the ConsliltlttOll 08 m imposes a duty On the publicemployer to pay mm Similar wagesto the doingsilnilar work Z and in view of the fact that the duties being tl perforilledby the petitionersare similar to thosc ClcrkslOctroi Clcrks and 19rivcrs who arc bcinc paidsalaryi11lhc regtilar tinle scalc Inveltld Illerll Cl lll the claim 01 thepetitioilcl s lhat thcy2IrCClllillcd to bepaidsalaryin lhe regularpay scale Hence the writ petitionis allowecl The respondents are directed to pay to the petltloners miniinUlll ofthe regularpay scales prescribedfor the posts of ClerkslOctroi Clcrks and 19rivers Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t 79 1 1 r 9 Theyshall also be paidDearnessAllowance and other allowances as may bc admissiblc to such under the Rules The different between the emolumentsalreadypaidto the and which may be payable to them in terms ofthe order shall be conflned to a periodof three years priorto 1r the date of filing of the Wrlt petitionThe arrears 0 shall be paidto thc witllin a pcriodof 0 I four monthsfronl the date of receiptof a certiOed C5 copyof this order 91 I The petitioners haveplaced 011record a nuillbet 01 Z P this Court and Honble Supreine Courl wherein lhe aforesaid jtidgilleillS 2 r havebeenrelied upon which are not beingadhcrcdto C To the contraryMsCharu Tuli Iearned for the 5 1 has relied upon State of Haryanaand another v TihIk Raj and olhco AIR 2003 SupremeCourt 2658 In the aforesaid judgmentwhile the desirability of of doctrine of EqualPay for EqualWork qua the dailywagers in wilh the regularand staff Honble Supreme Court madefollowingobservationsl 13Equal Pay for equalwork is a COllceptwhich requiresfor its applicability coinpleteand wholcsale identity between a group of enlployeesclailning identical pay scales and the other roup of einployees who have alreadyearnedsuch pay scales The problem about equalpay cannot alwaysbe translated into a mathematicalforinula Il Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 1 4 dArV 10 Referenceis also made to lhejudgmelltpasscdin lllc cilsc 01Stittc 11 Orissa and others vs Balaram Sahu and othcrs220031 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 wherein Hotoble SupreillcCourt madc follotving observationsl l Though eqilalpay for equal work iS consideredto bc a coilcolllllant If Arlicle 14 21S 1 lnuchas equalwork for unequalwork will also 0 be a negationofthat rightequalpay would depend 0 I uponnot only the nature or the voluine of work C5 I but also on the qualitative dierence as regards reliabilityand as well and though Z the IlillctiOilSlllay be the same bul tIlC l 4 do make a rcal tllld Sllllsltllltia1 difference 08 C12 XXX XXX XXX XXX r A 13lo claitn a rcliefon the basisofequalitylt 1S Z for the claimalltsto substantivc a cleaocut basis01 ll and a resultanthostile discriinination beforebecoming eligibleto claim rightsonapar C with the olher group VIS1IIS Oil lllcged discriminatioi 99 Anotherjudgmentrelied upon by MsCharu 11 s ill the case ol State of Punjab and othcrs VSe Surinder Singhand another 2007 l41 SCT 628 wherein followingobservationshave beeninade1 fhc principle of equalpay for equaJwork has gonca sea changeEarlier lhe view 01 this Court Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 1 1 m I l was that if lwo IOCrStlll S 11rC dischargingthc SillllC Iilllclions tllcywi Il bc cnlillcd lo sanle WllgCS lhis view has bcen changed and llOll 1 the view of this court is that there should be completeand total identttybetwem the 1110 persons sllnl Iarlysituated so as to grantof 1 r jlily for cqiialwork Rcccntlylllis Ctllirt lIls hcltI 0 that identitybetwecll two persolls IltISlo bc C complete and total ln case of a regularappointee C5 he has undergone a selection process and his I servicesare reglllilra EVcil iftl dtlilywitgeeillploycc Z iS the same functions as a regular C lllc tiulIloritics tlic IltIl lltllllld Itl 81llt equalpay to such a person who is Otl 1 dailywage basisie appointed for a short term and 1 has not faced the selcction process Thus the i 1 principle of equalpay for equalwork has to be grantedonly if there is a total and cotnplete identitybetweenthe two persons ln this view we 1 arc by a dccIsion 0 lhis Courl iil lhc C case of SCChand ra 8 Others vse State tIf a Jharkhand and others 2007 t41SC 76 2007 91 SCR 130 JT 2007 101SC 272 which hos beenreferred10 earlier in decisionsoflhis Courl XXX xxx xxx 8ln vicw of thc IcoIl positionas Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ammaW 82 1 1 12 above we are of the opltlion that lhe view takenby the Honble High Court grantingpay scale of regular to the daily wage employees doesnot appearto be well founded we allow theseappeals and set aside the order o f the14igh Court as also the Trial Court and dislniss 1Q the suits flled bythc rcspondcnts hereill 99 0 Thedictum ofthe aforesaidjudgmeilts rclied upon byMsCllaiu 1111 Co I thatthc doctrinc of cqualpay l7lrecjuoI wot14 990CtlllllOlIlCIllvtlkctlillercll iS C5 1 I becatisesome einployees are siinilar kind of duties A Iot 01 otherconsiderations are required 10 be seen for Ivhich ihe relevant malerial Z tnustbe placedon record Siinilar issue was consideredby this Court in the caseofPardeepKumar and others vs State of Punjaband others CWP I NoS671 of 1987 deeided on 3101002008 In the aforesaid case while 08 f the judgmentof Honble SupreineCourt lll the case of 3 Surinder Singh 6supralfolloWingobservationshave beenlnadel Z 444owever in Surinder Kuinars case supralthe m Honble Apex Court has ruled that the principle cannot be appliedunless there is total aild idcnlityhelwccil Ihe Iwtl pcrstllls Ill Ill present case on account of varlous earlier judginentof this Court contlrmed by tlle Hoilhlc SupreineCourt daily wagers Ill alinost all the are gettingthe basicsalaryin the pay scale of equivalentpost occupiedby lhc regtllar and this bene17thas loccil alIowed to Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 4 0 CWPNO116 of2009 etc 13 thenl lor the periodprccediiigtllrcc ycars 011dllvo months before the tllingof the writ petition he are similarlysilualed and lhusthcre IS colnplete and total identitybetweenthe and the dailywagers who are worklilglll othet in tlleStateThe pelitioncrs cannotbe denied the similar benefits as has been granted to 0 other dailyivagersworkingin the saine and other C3 91 i I in the Stateof Punjab 99 C5 The sum and substanceofthe relied upon both thesidcs is r e thatthe doctrlneofequalpay for equalwork is onlywherethe Z identitybetween the ily wagers ancl reglil11 C appointed is cstablishcd lhc spccillc avcrmcilts madc by thc r petttionersare that they are perfonning the same duties as the regularly 08 CO appointed are performing and a largenunlber of dailywagers mw are gettingthe lninimum of the pay scale byVlrtue of various 01 Z the Honble SupremeCourt and this Courl as also that SOlll C lllllC tllC Qm are These averments havenot beendeniedand disputed Ill the replyflled by the The onlyarguineillsraised on behalf 0 the is that dailv wagers have not beenselccted by any proccss C1 of selection whereas the regularlyaploointed cnlpIoyccs WCre duiyselectccl In view of the catena ofjudgments of this Courl alllrtllcd by tlle I lotlblc Supreine Court referredto hereilbove l aill clf thc coilsicleredvielv llltll the petitioners cannot be denied a siinilar treatment as givento other daily wagersworkingin various of the State in the saine categories to which the petitionersbelongEven thc specillc avennents of the Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1r t 9 rr 4 1 yCWP NO116 of2009 etc 14 11 1 iOl that persons who are engagedIater iil time than lhc pct111011rS 4 aregettlng minimum pay scales havenot beendeniedspeciflcallylt iS 110l r irrelevantto say that thereis coinpletetotal and wholesaleidentilybetween 11 the regularlyappointed employeesdaily wagers alreadygetting minlllllllll ofpayscaleunder the court ordersand the In view of the above thesepctilioilS 1 Tllc jlctitioilcrs shall m Q be entitled to minimum of the pay scale of the calegoriesto wh ich thcy 0 belongwith all allowances as revisedfroin tiine to tiine However thc relief 0 shall be conflned to threeyears preceding thc Olingof the Writ pctiti on s 111 C5 eachcase I 4t A copy be placed on rccord on eachconcernedOlc Z 5 2 Q C PERMOD KO111Il a5 JUDGE cn Wm3 MFK Z l Om NOTElWhether to be referrcdto Reportcr tlr 11019 YESlNG 3 6 q TCt1 r Anita 2014.03.11 16: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document