465 1 4 CWPNO116 of2009 etce IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATEOF 1i Rajinder Kumar and others eeePetitioners 0 r VERSUS 4a Stateof Punjab 8 Others Z TejPal Singh and others ePetitioners r VERSUS Stateof Punjab S4Others a5 3CWP No7853 of 1999 00 JaswinderSinghetc eeePetitioners 7 Z VERSUS e Stateof Punjab etce 4eCWPN0012553of 1999 WP DaanSingh and others eeePetitioners nV e VERSUS Stateof Punjab 82Others Respondents 5eEWPN019195of2008 1 ManjitSingh and others eeePetitioners VERSUS Stateof Punjab 8l Others e CWP N005461of 2009 Narinder Singhand others eeePetitioners P 44 e el ll L e ilC b4 9 114Il 44610biela41 0 Pooja 2014.02.28 09:56 Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 466 1 1 1 CWP NO116 of2009 etce 2 a VERSUS Stateof Punjab Si Others e e of2009 JagjitSingh and others eeePetitioners VERSUS m C Stateof Punjab Others 0 eCWPNoe5472of 2009 C Hira Lal and others eeePetitioners C VERSUS I Stateof Punjab 8LOthers Respondents Z 9eCWPNoe82of2003 6 1BholaSinghand others eeePetitioners 0 VERSUS 08 StateofPunjab S Others Respondents N0015217of2008 WA SubhashChand and others eeePetitioners Z Qm VERSUS Stateof Punjab 8 Others Respondents 11CWP No15204 of2008 Raj Kumar and others eeePetitioners C VERSUS StatevofPunjab Si Others e e 12CWP Noe197260f2008 Makhan Singh and others ePetitioners VERSUS StateofPunjab 8 Others No107 of2003 Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 467 CWP NO116 of2009 etce 3 1 v C Y Hans Raj and others eeePetitioners VERSUS StateofPunjabSLOthers 14CWP Noe16772of2008 J ShinderPaI and others ePetitioners 1 VERSUS tr Stateof Punjab 8 Others e e 23 0 a3 CORAM C5 r HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 6 Z PRESENT MrArora MrNDSammi MrGSBal MrlSMmhas MRamesh GoelMrM1Sammi MrNLSammi Advocates for thepetitioner 4 r MsCharu Tuli SrDAG Punjabfor 08 Permod KohliJe a0 1 Since common of law and factsare involved in thesewrit rm Z the same are of bythiscommon order For thesake of l1 brevityfacts are beingtakenfromCWP No116 of2009 The petitioners in thesepetitions are working on dailywagebasisin 1 different capacities in the Stateof Punjab the of WaterSupplyand Sanitation The prayersin all thesepetitions are for grant C of wages at the minimum of the pay scale as revisedfrom timetotime alongwithallowances and arrears of salaryfor a periodof threeyears precedingthefllingofthe writ petitions The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No11211 of2002 which came to be disposed ofvide order dated221 1007 with a direction to EngineerPWll Public Health RWS Circle Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 468 CWP NO116 of2009etce 4 1 to take a decision on the issue involved keepingin view the decisionrenderedbythe Supreme Court in the case of SecretaryState of Karnataka vse Uma Deviand others2006 31SLR l bypassing a well reasoned orderswithin six monthsfrom the date of receiptof a certifled copy of the order On the basis of the aforesaidorder the EngineerWater Supplyand SanitationCircle Ludhiana 1 lr videhisorder dated252008 Annexure Pe12 allegedly theclaim 0 of thepetitioners for at this stage It has been held that under 0 r the Government Policy dated 15 122006 the is to be C5 I ordered on completion of 10 years or more service strictly to e their seniorityin the concemed categoryagainstthe availableregular Z 4 sanctionedvacant postswith the It has been mentionedthat 1 has been made in different against the available vacancies For Pump has been made upto638 08 t for Mali Cum Chowkidar upto 570 and for Fitter Coolie upto 72 of the 1a 1 list whereas the numbersare much below and the Z tl case will beconsideredas andwhen theirtum comes to their seniorityIt is irther statedthat none ofthe juniorpersonsto the petitioners havebeen regularized Learned counsel for the have arguedthat the claim of the petitioners ltl the aforesaid writ petitionswas not for C but for the grantof the minimum ofthe pay scale which has been extendedto similarlysituatedpersonsand largenumber of persons engaged on dailywage basis later intime thanthe hve8een granted such benefitswhile denying the same treatment to the petitioners This fact is also evident from one of the judgmentdated 1 S Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 469 CWPNO116 of2009 etce 5 Vll 1 CWPNo11211 of2002filedbythe The V 221 2007 passcd lll 32 11 aS have filed this petition the aforesaid F6 57e orderAnnexure I121 and have soughtthe relieffor thegrantof wages at the minimumofthe pay scale In all the otherpetitions also the relief is for 1 grantofwagesat the minimum ofthe pay scale The have relied uponvanouS ofthis Court andtheHonble Supreme Coun earlier 1 1 passed 0 However the claim of the is opposed andresistedbythe 0 I on the ground that the are notentitledto the saine 1 wages as are to the of the State i 1 5C MsCharu Tuli Ieamedcounselfor the hassubmiuedthatin Z thelight ofthe ofthe Honble Courtin the case ofUma tr Devi supral the petitioners are not entitledto be It has 712 je further been on behalf of the thatby similar OO payscales would amount to treating the unequals with equals which itself 7 lS in contravention to the of Articles 14 and 16 of the Z 3 Constitutionof India tl I haveheardlearnedcounsel for theparties It is not that the are workingin various as Pump Malilme ChawkidarFitter Coolie Fitter HelperStore Munshi and on such other C It is admittedpositionthat the petitioners are working on daily wagebasis for the last number of years in some cases maybe more than two decades It is in the writ petition that there is group of thousandsof working on dailywage basisin the State 7 of PunjabThe duties and of the in their 5 respectivecategoriesare same Theyperform identicalAlnctions and share Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 470 6 yv2 NO116of2009 etce e similar Even the dutiesamongstthe in their categonesare Theyare of the same State State lists have been for different and allthe wise thejointsenioritylists A largenumberof daily petitlonersare borne on even later in time stand whereas othersare gettingITllniinum ofpay scaleundervarious of this coun and e 5r theHonble ApexCourt The havereferredto a largenumberof 0 byHonble Supreme Courtand this Court Some of such 0 are noticedhereunderl 45 In the case of State of PunjabQ Others vse Devinder Singh Others Civil Noe4492 of 1997 decided on the Z HonbleSupreme Court has madefollowingobservationsle 0 46 n our view the principle of EqualPayfor Equal Work can ensure to the to the C45 Ol limitedextent that when theywere foundto have a beengivingsimilar work as Ledger Z theycould have been paidtheminimum fl of the pay scale of a LedgerKeeperwhich was available to Ledger Clerks Leamed counsel for the CJ could not contendthal suchan order shouldnot have been passedWe thereforeallow this appeal to the limited extent thatthough the are held limitedon the principle ofEqual Payfor EqualWork to getthe salaryavailable to the Ledger e Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 471 1 CWPNO16 of2009 et 7 Clerks who are recruitedtheywould be entitledto the minimum of the pay scale of the Keeperswhich may be available to the LedgerKeepersand they 1 cannotbe paidthe runningtime scale as theywere not as Ledger 1 Cierks Il 20 0 On the basis of the aforesaid CWP No 10017of 0 1995was decided vide judgmentdated208 1998 passedby this Coun C5 wherein followingobservationshavebeenmadela 5 e 64iccordinglyI allow the writ petition and directthe Z 2 to pay the minimum pay scale to the r petitioners aS lS availableto the regularOctroi Clerks r with allowances on the basis and the 08 ClO differencebetweenthe emolumentsalreadypaidto each C of the shallbepaidfor a periodof threeyears Z priorto the filingofthe writ petition ie from 1221992 fl The arrears So calculated shall be paidwithin four months There wiIl be no order as to costs A similar order came to bepassedbyHonble Supreme Court in the C caseof NagarPanchayatBhikhiwind vse Kulbir SinghG Others Civil AppealN00187911999decided on wherein it hasbeenobsenled asunderl 642espondents are under the appellant theHighCourt for the relief that they are entitledto the scale of pay as is available to mV Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 472 v cn7PNO0116of2009etc 8 regular in the scale The IctIrncdSingleJudge the said relief On appealtheDivisionBenchhascome to conclusion that there is no to interferewith the order of the learned SingleJudge but funher clarilled thatso far as the arrears are concerned 1 Q the would be entitled to draw at the 0 minimum ofthe scaleofpayfor a periodof3 years 0 I priorto dateofthe fllingofthe writ petition Il C5 A Division Bench of thisCourt allowed CWP Noe7807of 1999on 1422000 relying upon the above andmadefollowing Z observationsl V 0 64 The doctrine of equalpay for equalwork I enshrined in Article 3911of the Constitution 08 oo imposes a dutyon the publicemployer to pay 7 sitnilarwagesto the doingsimilarwork Z and in Vlew of the fact that the duties being tl by the petitioners are similar to those ClerkslOctroi Clerks and Drivers who are being paidsalaryin the regulartime scale we flnd merit 111the claim of thepetitioners thattheyare entitled to bepaidsalaryin theregularpay scale Hence the Wrlt petitionis allowed The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners minimum of the regularpay scales prescribedfor the posts of CIerkslOctroiClerks and Drivers Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 473 J cwr NO116of2009etce 9 Theyshall also be paidDeamess Allowanceand other as may be admissibleto such undertheRules The different between theemoluments already paidto the and whichmay be payable to them in terms ofthe order shallbe confinedto a periodof threeyearspriorto 1 C the dateof filingof the writ petitionThe arrears 0 shall be paidto the within a periodof Ca3 2C fourmonthsfrom the dateof receiptof a certi6ed t5 copyofthis order 1 The haveplaced on recorda number of Z 4 this Court and Honble Supreme Court whereinthe aforesaid Q 41 havebeenreliedupon which are not beingadheredto To thecontraryMsCharu Tuli leamed counsel for the Oll QO hasrelied upon State of Haryanaand another ve Tilak Raj and others e 1 AIR 2003 SupremeCourt 2658 In the aforesaid while Z the desirability of of doctrineof EqualPayfor tl EqualWork qua the dailywagers in with the regularand 1 staff Honble Supreme Courtmadefollowing observationse c 13 Equal Pay for equalwork is a concept which requires for its and wholesale identitybetween a group of claiming identicalpay scales and the other group of who have already eamedsuch pay scales The problem about equalpay cannot alwaysbe translated into a mathematicalformula Il Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 474 11 LvvP NO116 of2009 etc 10 1 1 e4 Referenceis also madeto thejudgment passed in the case of State of Orissa and others vs Balaram Sahu and others2200311 Supreme Court Cases 250 wherein Honble Court made following observationsl 1 Thoughequaipay for equalwork 1S considered to be a concomitantof Article 14 as 1 r much as equalwork for unequal work will also 0 be a ofthat rightequalpay would depend uponnot onlythe nature or the volumeof work 0 ut also on the differenceas regards reliability and as well and though Z 1C the 81nctions may be the same but the r 41 do make a real and substantial 2C difference c8 CO XXX XXX XXX Xxx 14 sa 13To claim a reliefon the basisofequalityit is Z CL for the claimantsto substantive a clearecutbasisof equivalence and a resultanthostilediscrimination before eligibleto claim rightsonapar C with the other group VlSVlS an alleged discriminatiol Il Another relieduponbyMsCharu Tuli is in thecasof StateoPunjab and others vse Surinder Singhand another 2007 Il SCT 628 whereinfollowing observationshavebeenmadel 6The principle of equalpay for equalwork has gonea sea changeEarlier the view of this CourtSahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 475 J CWP NO116 of2009 etce ll l 4 4 r was that if two personsare the samc functions theywill be entitled to same wages thisviewhasbeen andnow lhe view of this court is that there should be and total identitybetween the two persons similarly situated so as to grantof equal m C payfor equalwork Recently this Court has held 0 that identitybetween two persons has to be 0 r complete and total In case of a regular C5 he has a selection process and his nrm servicesare regular Even ifa dailywage Z 5 1S the same 8lnctions as a regular 0 er the authoritiesare not bound to grant C cqual pay to such a person who is on c3 cQ dailywage basisie for a shorttenn and er am3 has not faced the selection process Thus the Z principleof equalpay for equalwork has to be Oam grantedonly if there lS a total and complete identitybetweenthe two persons In this view we are by a decision of this Court in the case of SeCeChandra Others VSe State of Jharkhand and others2007 141SCT 76 2007 91 SCR 130 JT 2007 101SC 272 which has beenreferredto earlier in decisionsofthis Court Xxx XXX XXX 8 n view of the legalpositionas mentioned Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 476 e 1 yv P NO116 of2009 etc 12 I 6 abovcwc are of theopinion thattheview takenby V the Honble HighCourt granting pay scale of to the dailywage doesnot appearto be well founded we allow these appeals and set asidethe orderof the HighCourt as also theTrial Courtanddismiss Iw thesuits flled bythe herein 91 0 Thedictuin of the aforesaid reliedupon byMsCharu Tuli C 1Sthatthe doctrine of equalpay for equalwork cannot be invokedmerely C5 1 because some are similar kind of duties A lot of otherconsiderationsare required to be seen for which therelevantmaterial Z mustbe placed on record Similar issue was consideredbythis Coun in the Q case ofPardeepKumar and others vse State ofPunjaband othersWP 5 n Noe8671of1987 decided on In the aforesaidcase while 08 010 the judgmentof Honble SupremeCourt 1I1 the case of e 7 Surinder Singh supral followingobservations havebeenmade Z 64iowever in SurinderKumarscase lpral the Ll Honble ApexCourt has ruied that the principle cannot be appliedunless there is total and completeidentitybetween the two persons In the C present case on account of various earlier judgment of this Court conflrmed by the Honble 711 Supreme Court dailywagersin almost all the are getting thebasic salaryin the pay scale of postoccupiedby the regular and this benefit has been allowed to Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 477 1 CWP NO116 of2009 etca 13 a A them for theperiod three yearsand two monthsbefore the filingof the writ petitionThe are similarly situatedand thus lhereis andtotaiidentity betweenthe and the dailywagers who are workingin other in the State The cannot be 1 deniedthe similarbenefltsas hasbeen to 0 otherdailywagersworking in the same and other C in theStateofPunjab Il C5 The sumand subStance relied uponboththe sides is I thatthe doctrineof equalpay for equalwork is onlywherethe Z identitybetween the wagers and regular 0 is establishedThe speciOc averments madebythe I petitionersare that theyare the same dutiesas the a5 Qo appointed are and a largenumber of dailywagers V are gettingthe minlmum of the pay scale byvirtueof various of Z the Honble Supreme Court and this Court as also that some time the posts tl are These averments havenot beendeniedand disputed in thereplyflled bythe The onlyargumentsraised on behalf of the is that dailywagershave not beenselectedbyany process C of selection whereasthe regulariy were dulyselected In view of the catena of of this Court affirmedbytheHonble Supreme Court referred to heretabove I am of theconsideredview that the cannot be denied a similar treatment as givento otherdaily wagersworking ln variOUS of the Statein the same categories to which the petitionersbelongEven the specificavermentsof the Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 478 t CWP NO16 of2009 etc 14 l that persons who are later tntime than the are miniinuin pay scales havenot beendenied specificallyIt is not irrelevantto saythat thereis complete total and wholesaleidentitybetween theregularlyappointed dailywagers alreadygetting minimum of pay scale underthe court ordersandthe In view of the above thesepetitions The shall 1 C be entitledto minimum of the pay scaleof the to which they 0 belong with all allowancesas revised from timeto time However therelief C0 shallbe confinedto threeyears thefilingofthe writ petitions ln C eachcase C A copy beplaced on recordon eachconcemedflle Z lr t Wlm t PERMOD KOHLII 08 JUDGE CQ 09702009 m MFK Z L Cle NOTEWhether to bereferredto Reponer or not2YESIM3 h 2171 b8AliJ 49 It Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document