91 CWPNO116of2009etce 1 Idr IN TllE IllCll COIJRT OF PUNJAB AND 1 Il Ir CIIANIIIGARII DATE OF 4 10 1CWP NO116 of2009 0 RajinderKumar and others eeePetitioners 0 VERSUS t5 Others 1 CWP N0e13772of2008 Z TcjPal Singhand otliers eePetitioners a 1 0 VERSUS S Stateof Punjab Others 08 1 lCWIl NoSl of 1999 rlo J 4r JaswinderSinghetce eeePetitioners 7 Z VERSUS StateofPunjabetce Respondents 4eCWP Noe12553of 1999 Daan Singh and others OeePetitioners e VERSUS StateofPunjab Others 5CWPNoe19195of2008 ManjitSingh and others eeePetitioners VERSUS Stateof Punjab Others CWP N005461of 2009 NarinderSinghand others eePctitioneies 1 1 1 14 v49 1 J1b441144 5 4AdUw ae oelv 1 114 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 d CWP NO116 of2009 etca 2 V VERSUS 8tOthers of 2009 JagjitSingh and othcrs eeePetitioners VERSUS 1 C StateofPunjab8LOthers of2009 C Hira Lal and others eeePetitioners I t5 VERSUS StateofPunjab8LOthers Respondents Z Noe82of2003 BholaSingh and others eeePetitioners 0 e VERSUS 1 06 StateofPunjabSl Others oo OeCWPNoe15217of2008 m Subhash Chand andothers eeePetitioners Z 0 VERSUS Stateof Punjab Si Others 1 l 11CWP Noe15204of2008 Raj Kumar and others eeePctitioners Ce VERSUS StateofPunjabS Others 12CWP N0019726of2008 Makhan Singh and othcrs eePetitioners VERSUS StateofPunjab 8 Others N0107 of2003 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 93 CWP NO116 of2009etce 3 41 HansRaj and othcrs 900Petitioners VERSUS StateofPunjabSi Others e e 140CWPNoe16772of2008 J ShinderPal and others eeePetitioners m VERSUS t Stateof Punjab Si Others ee 0 C0 J CORAM Iw Sam t HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI r 17 1 n PRESENTI MrK1Arora MilDSammi MrGSBal RSManhas MrRamesll Goel MrMSammi MrlIILSammi 9 r Advocatesfor the 44 MsCharu Tuli SrDAG Punjabfor t2r5 Permod Kohliel 1 ll 14 Since coinmon of law and facts are involvedin thesewrit 7 fZ the same arc of bythiscommonorder For thesakeof 0 1 brevltyfacts are beingtakenfromCWP Nol 16of2009 The petitioners in thesepetitions are working on dailywage basis in differentcapacities in theStateof Punjab the of Water Supply and Sanitation The prayetsin all thesepetitions are for grant of wages at thc illlllllllUlll of the pay scale as revised from tlme to time and arrearsof sala for a of three years preccdingthclllingofthe writ pctitions The had earlierflled CWP No1211 of2002 which came to bedisposed of vide order dated22 l l 007 with a directionto noSuperintcndingEngineerPWD Public Health RWS Circle 4 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t 94 CWFNO10ofIlll 9tCe 4 v J to take a decisionon the issue involvedkeeping in view the decisionrendercdbytheSupreme Court in the case of SecretaryState of Karnataka vse Uma Devi and others2006 31SLR l bypassing a well reasoned orderswithin six monthsfromthe dateof of a certifledcopy of the order On the basis of the aforesaidorder the EngineerWater Supplyand SanitationCircle Ludhiana 1 lZ videhisorderdated2532008 Pel2Iallegedly theciaim 0 ofthe for at thisstageIt hasbeenheldthatunder 0 the Government Policy dated 151 22006 the is to be C5 r orderedon of 10 years or more service strictlyaccording to t their seniority lll the concerned categoryagainstthe availableregular Z sanctionedvacant postswith the It has been mentionedthat V2 tr rr has beeninadein different against the available 08 vacancies For PumpOperators has been made upto638 Qo for Mali Cum Chowkidarupto 570 and for Fitter Coolie upto 72 of the em 1ist whereasthe numbers are much below and the Z case will beconsideredas andwhen theirtum comes ll to theirseniority lt is furtherstatedthat none of the juniorpersonsto the havebeen Learnedcounselfor the have arguedthatthe claim of the Ill the aforesaidwrit petitionswas not for 4 but for thegrantof the minimumofthe pay scale which has beenextendedto similarlysituatedpersons and largenumberof persons on dailywage basisIater111time thanthe havebeen such beneOtswhile denying thesame treatment to the This fact is also evident from one of the dated Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 CWP NO116 of2009 etce 5 vml d 22 112007 in CWP No11211 of 2002 filed bythe The V have accordinglyfiled this petitionchallenging the aforesaid ordcr Annexure Pm121and havesought thereliefforthegrantof wagesat tlle 1111111111Ulll of lhepay scule ln ali theother also thercliefis for grantof wagesat the rninimum of the pay scale The have relied upon various ofthis CourtandtheHonble Courtearlier 1 r passed 0 Howeverthe claitn of the is andresistedbythe 0 I on the groundthat the arenot entitledto the same t5 wages as are to the of the State I MsCharuTuli Iearnedcounselfor the hassubmiuedthatIn Z theIightofthe judgment ofthe Honble Supreme Court in the case ofUma r r Devi supral the are not entitledto be It has further been argued on behalf of the thatby similar a5 QO pay scaleswould ainount to treating the with equals which itself 4 WVo 1S in contraventlOn to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Z Constitutionof India Qd I haveheardlearnedcounselfor thepartiesIt is nt that the 00 lll V81i8U8865acesas Pump Mallecume Chawkidar Fitter Coolie Fitter HelperStoreMunshi and on such other C It is admittedposition that the are working on daily wagebasisfor the Iastnumberof years in some cases may be more than two decades lt is pleaded in the writ petition that thereis group of thousandsof working on dailywage basisin theState of PunjabThe dutiesand of the in their respective categorles are same Theyperform identical lnctionsand share 1 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 e CWP NO116 of2009 etce 6 vb 4 siinilar Even the dutiesamongsthe in their V ClllCgol7CS tlrC llleyOre of thc same State State WISCseniority Iistshavebeen for different and all the petitioners are borneon thejoint iists A largenumberof daily wagers even later lntime stand whereasothersare gettinglTllnimum of pay scaleunder vanous of thiscourt and 1 l tllc Honble ApexCourt Thc havereferredto a Iargenumberof 2 judgmentspassedbyHonble Supreme CourtandthisCoun Someof such 0 0P08olioodhorounclerl C49 In the case of State of Punjab Others vse DevinderSingh82 4 Others lCivil AppealNoe4492of 1997 dccidcd on the Z 4 Honblc Courthasmadefollowing observatiOns 2 tr 46 In our view the principle of EqualPayfor I EqualWork the to the can ensure to 08 00 limitedextent that whentheywerefoundto have 3 beengivingsimilarwork as Ledger Z Keeperstheycould have beenpaidthe mlnimum Om of the pay scale of a LedgerKeeperwhich was avaiIable to appointed Ledger Clerks Learnedcounsel for the C respondents could not successAilly contend that such an ordershouldnot have beenpassedWe thereforeallow this appealto the limited extent thatthough the are held limitedon the principleofEqualPayfor EqualWork to getthe salaryavailable to the Ledger 1 r r Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 97 91 CWPNO116of2009etc 7 l3 Clerkswho are recruitedtheywould be entitledto the minimumof the payscaleof the Keepers which may be available to the LedgerKeepersand they 4 cannot be paidthe runningtime scale as theywere not as Ledger 1 0 Clerks Il 20 0 On the basis of the aforesaidjudgmentCWP No10017 of C0 1995 was decided dated2081998 passedby this Coun C wherein following observationshavebeenmadel e 64AccordinglyI allow the writ petition and direct the Z t to pay the minimum pay scale to the t It petitioncrsOS IS availablcto the regularOctroiClerks r with allowances on the basis and the 08 80 differencebetweenthe einolumentsalready paidto each C WA of the shall be paidfor a periodofthreeyears Z priorto thefllingofthe writ petitionefrom 1221992 tl The arrears So calculated shall be paidwithin four 1 1 4 monthsThere will be no orderas to costs Il 1 A similarordcr came to bepassedbyHonble Supreme Courtin the C case of NagarPanchayatBhikhiwind vse Kulbir Singh Others Civil AppcalNo187911999decidedon whereinit hasbeenobserved asunder 41 are under the the HighCourt for the relief that they are entitledto the scale of pay as is available to 94 4 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 98 41 v rIP NO0116of2009 etce 8 4 regular in the scale The Vl Iearned rantedthssaidroliofOn appeal theDivisionBenchhascome to conclusion that thereis no to interferewith the orderof the leamedSingleJudge but further cIariOedthat so far as the arrears are concerned t the would be entitledto draw at the 0 ininiinum ofthe scaleofpayfor a periodof3 years 0 priorto dateofthe filingofthe writ petition Il 40 I A Division Beneh of this Court allowed CWP Noe7807of 1999 on 142000 relying upon the above andmadefollowing Z observationsl a 14 The doctrine of equalpay for equalwork I enshrined in Article 39i1 of the Constitution 08 n0 imposes a dutyOll the public to pay m7 similarwagesto the doingsimilarwork Z and in view of the fact that the duties being Ll by the are similar to those SC ClerkslOctroiClerks and Drivers who are being paidsalaryin the regular timescale we find merit 4 lll theclaim Oro to bepaidsalary in theregular pay scale Ience the writ petitionis allowed The are directedto pay to the petitioners ininimuin of the regularpay scales for the posts of ClerkslOctroiClerks and Drivers Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 99 LWiPNO116 of2009 etce 9 r 1 Theyshall also be paidDeamess Allowance and 1 other allowancesas may be admissibleto such undertheRules The differentbetween theeinolumentsalready paidto the and whichmay bepayable to themin terms ofthe order shallbeconfinedto a periodof threeyearspriorto 1 r thedateof filingof thewrit Thearrcars 0 shallbe paidto the within a periodof 0 fourmonthsfrom the dateof receiptof a certified copyofthis order b1 114t The haveplaced on recorda number of 1Z 1 this Court and Honble Supreme Court wherein the aforesaid 0 4 havebeenrelied upon which are not beingadheredto e To thecontraryMsCharu Tuli learned counsel for the 08 OO has reliedupon State of Haryanaand another ve Tilak Raj and others 4 3 AIR 2003 SupremeCourt 2658 In the aforesaid judgmentwhile Z 1 the of of doctrineof EqualPayfor 1 EqualWork qua the dailywagers in with the regularand 1 staff Honble Supreme Court madefollowing observationsle Ce 137EqualPay fot equalwork is a conceptwhich requires for its and wholesale identitybetween a groupof claiming idcnlical pay scalesand the other group of who have already earnedsuch pay scales The problem about equalpay cannot aiwaysbe translatedinto a mathematicalfonnula Il Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 400 e J CWPNO0116of2009 etc 10 4 Referenceis also madeto thejudgment passed in the case of State of Vl Orissaand otllers vse Bala ram Sahu and others22003 1 Supreme 10 Cou rt Cases 250 wherein Honble SupremeCourt made following l leeeeThoughequalpay for equalwork 1S consideredto be a concomitantof Article 14 as 1a l much as equalworkfor unequal work will also 20 0 be a negation ofthat rightequalpaywoulddepend Ca0 Sr uponnot onlythe nature or the volumeof work 4 rm out also on the diffetenceas 2C r rcliobility and as well and though Z 5 the functions may be the same but the f 4 do make a real and substantial difference 08 Cfl XXX XXX XXX xxx 2 13To claim a reliefon the basisofequalityit is Z eo for theclaimantsto substantive a clearecutbasisof L r and a resultanthostilediscrimination A 5 1 beforc eligibleto claim rightson a par 4 C with the other group alleged VisVlS an 31 Another reliedupon byMsCharu Tuii is in the case of State of Punjaband othcrs VS Surinder Singhand another 2007 41 SCT 628 whereinfollowing observationshavebeenmadele 6The principle of equalpayfor equalwork has gonea sea changeEarlier the vlew of this Court Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 401 Vf CWP NO16 of2009 etc 11 V was that if two personsare the same functiollS the will be ntillodto samewoge9 thisview hasbeen andnow thc view of this court is that there 0hwldbc and total identitybetween the two persons similariy situated so as to grantof equal 1 r pay for equalwork Recently this Court has held 0 that identitybetween two persons has to be C43 I and total In case of a regular C5 he has a selection process and his I e4 services ifa dailywage Z IS the same 81nctions as a regular C 4 the authoritiesare not bound to grant I equalpayto such a person who is on rA5 00 dailywage basisie for a short term and C 3 has not faced the selection process Thus the Z 1 principle of equalpay for equalwork has to be tl grantedonly if there ls a total and identitybetweenthe two persons ln this view WC are by a decision of this Court in the Ce case of SeCChandra Others vse State of Jharkhand and others 2007 Il SCT 76i 2007 91 SCR 130 JT 2007 101SC 272 which has bcenreferredto earlierin decisionsofthis Court XXX XXX XXX 8 n view of the legalpositionas mentioned a e Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 1 NO116 of2009 etc 12 1 1 above we are of theopinionthattheview tkonby 1 the Honble HighCourt granting pay scale of to the dailywage doesnot appearto bewell founded we allow theseappeals and set asidetheorderof the HighCourt as alsotheTrial Court anddismiss 1 thesuitsfiled bythe herein 33 0 The dictutnofthe aforesaid reliedupon byMsChwu Tuli C is that the doctrineofequalpay for equalwork cannot be invokedmerely C5 1 I becausesome are similarkind of duties A Iot of 4 other considerations are to be seen for which therelevantmaterial Z 2 inustbeplaced on record Similarissuewas consideredbythCourt in the C case ofPardeepKumar and others vs StateofPunjaband others CWP I Noe8671 of 1987 decided on In the aforesaid case while 08 oo the j udgmentof Honble Court in the case of a7 Surinder Singh supralfollowing observationshavebeenmade1 Z ti 4owever in SurinderKumars supralthe 11 case Honble ApexCourt has ruled that the principle cannot be appliedunless there 1S total and identity betweenthe two persons In the C present case on account of various earlier of this Courtconfirmedby the Honble SupremeCourt dailywagersin almost all the are getting the basicsalaryin the pay scale of postoccupied by the regular and this benefit has been allowed to 4 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 403 e0 1 NO0116of2009etCe 1 4 Sa VV Il 1 period threeyearsand two themfor the monthsbefore the filingof the wnt are similarly situatedand thus there andtotalidentity betweenthe and thedailywagerswho are workingin otlle in the StateThe cannot be 1 t deniedthesimilarbenefitsas hasbeen to 0 otherdailywagersworking in the same andother 1 in the StateofPunjab 91 I C5 The SuinandsubStance reliedupon boththesidesis 4 thatthe doctrineofequalpay forequalwork is onlywherethe Z identitybetween the wagers and regular 1 tr Ie enlployees is establishedThe specific averments madeby the I petitioners are that theyare the same duties as the c45 QO are and a largenumberof dailywagers t4 WW the minilnuinof the pay scalebyvirtue of various of are Z thcHonble Supreine Court and tohisCourt as alsothat some timetheposts 13m are These avertnentshavenot beendeniedand in thereplyflled bythe The onlyarguments raised on behalfof the is thatdaily wagershavenot beenselectedbyany process C of selectlollwhereasthe were dulyselected of thisCourt afOrmedbythe Honble In vicw ol the catena of i Court referredto hereinmaboveI am of theconsideredview that the cannot be denied a similartreatment as givento otherdaily wagers working 111varioUS of the Statein the same categories to which the petitionersbelongEven the specificavermentsof the 690m Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 404 Y CWP N0116 of211119 etc i 4 t that personswho are Iaterin time thanthe aregetting minimumpay scales havenot beendeniedspecicallyIt is not irrelevantto say that therc is complete totalandwholesaleidentity between thc regularlyappointcd dailywagersalreadygetting minitnum ofpayscoleunderthe court ordersandthe In view of theabove these The shall 1 lr be cntitledto ininimuinof the pay scaleof the to which they 0 belong withall allowances as revisedOomtimeto time However therelief 0 I shallbe confinedto threeyears thefilingof thewrit petitions ln C3 eachcase I Cr A copy beplaced on recordon eachconcemedOle Z tt r 4e4 08 PERMOD KOHLII JUDGE m 41 090702009 em MFK Z L Cl NOTElWhctIlcr lo bc rcferredlu Reponer or nol7YESINO 1729 161ti9 5 1r121 Uma 2014.03.07 16: 40 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document