IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.1577, 1502, 341 of 2002; 93, 94, 304, 346, 411, 868, 872, 984, 985, 1001, 1002 of 2003; 3, 667 of 2004; and 500, 501 of 2006. Decided on : August 26, 2008 1. CWP No.1577/2002 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Bahadur Singh and others …Respondents. 2. CWP No.1502/2002 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Sant Ram and others …Respondents. 3. CWP No.341/2002 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Suresh Dutt and others …Respondents. 4. CWP No.93/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Virender Kumar and others …Respondents. 5. CWP No.94/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Sita Ram and others …Respondents. 6. CWP No.304/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Divya Prakash and others …Respondents. 7. CWP No.346/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Prem Singh and others …Respondents. …2… 8. CWP No.411/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Mohan Lal and others …Respondents. 9. CWP No.868/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Roshan Lal …Respondent. 10. CWP No.872/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Labh Singh …Respondent. 11. CWP No.984/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Kanshi Ram …Respondent. 12. CWP No.985/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Kandroop Ram …Respondents. 13. CWP No.1001/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Rajesh Kumar and others …Respondents. 14. CWP No.1002/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Balam Ram …Respondent. 15. CWP No.3/2004 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Twarku Ram and others …Respondents. 16. CWP No.667/2004 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Ashok Kumar and others …Respondents. …3… 17. CWP No.500/2006 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Basant Lal and others …Respondents. 18. CWP No.501/2006 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Jagdev Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, in all the writ petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, in CWPs No.1577, 1502 of 2002; 346, 411 of 2003; and 500 of 2006. None in CWP No.341 of 2002; 868, 872, 984, 985 and 1002 of 2003; 3 of 2004. M/s A.K. Gupta, R.D. Kaundal and Praneet Gupta, Advocates, for respective respondents, in CWP No.93 of 2003. M/s A.K. Gupta & R.D. Kaundal, Advocates, in CWP No.94 of 2003. Ms Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, in CWP No.304 of 2003 and 501 of 2006. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No.1001 of 2003. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, in CWP No.667 of 2004 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …4… Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) The present writ petitions have been filed by the State, through its Director of Horticulture, with the prayer that the orders of the following dates, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in the Original Applications mentioned against them, be set aside, being contrary to facts and also illegal:- Date of order Number of the OA 2nd June, 1999 2013 of 1998 7th November, 2000 1141 of 2000 5th June, 2001 448 of 1999 2nd August, 2001 3134 of 1999 30th August, 2001 2053 of 2000 3rd December, 2001 577 of 2000 5th March, 2002 2560 of 2001 2958 of 2001 31st December, 2002 491 of 2001 3rd January, 2003 41 of 2002 7th April, 2003 235 of 2001 8th April, 2003 237 of 2001 238 of 2001 9th April, 2003 234 of 2001 236 of 2001 24th September, 2003 144 of 2001 24th March, 2006 1553 of 2001 26th April, 2006 1951 of 2000 All these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, because the points involved therein are common. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. Respondents (in all the writ petitions) remained as daily waged workers in various offices of Horticulture Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, from 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1995, against non-sanctioned …5… posts and also their wages were not charged against the Head “Wages”. They were paid wages at a rate lower than the rate at which daily waged workers employed against sanctioned posts and whose wages were charged to the Head “Wages” were paid. They claimed that they were entitled to wages, at the same rate as those who were employed against sanctioned posts and whose wages were charged to Head “Wages”. It was claimed by them that by application of principle of ‘equal wages for equal work’, they were entitled to payment of wages on par with their counterparts engaged against sanctioned posts. 3. Prayer made by the respondents was opposed by the petitioners-State. It was alleged that the Government, vide its order dated 21.6.1993 (Annexure R-4 annexed to the affidavit filed by Special Secretary (Finance) on 23.8.2008 in CWP No.1577 of 2002), had specifically directed that the revised rates mentioned therein were only in respect of those daily waged workers, who had been employed against sanctioned posts and whose wages were charged to the Head “Wages” and whose engagement was through employment exchanges and since the respondents were not employed against any sanctioned post nor were their wages charged to Head “Wages” and also they having not been employed, on being sponsored by any employment exchange, they were not entitled to the rates revised through the aforesaid order, Annexure R-4.. It was stated that instead they were entitled to minimum wages, as fixed by the Labour and Employment Department, as was provided in the said Notification, itself. …6… 4. Learned Tribunal, placing reliance upon some of its previous judgments, held that no distinction was required to be made between the respondents and other daily waged workers, who were engaged against sanctioned posts or whose wages were charged to Head “Wages”. Consequently, the Original Applications filed by the respondents were allowed and they were ordered to be paid at the same rate as their counterparts employed against sanctioned posts, by the impugned order. 5. The only point that has been raised by the petitioners is that there was a communication, Annexure P-4 (in CWP No.1577 of 2002), issued by the Finance Department to the effect that daily waged workers, engaged against non-sanctioned posts and whose wages were not charged to the Head “Wages”, were to be paid at the rates mentioned in Annexure R-4, referred to hereinabove, with effect from 1.4.1995 and not prior to that date and, hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. It is alleged that this order, Annexure P-4, was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. 6. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General, for the petitioners-State; and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 7. We see no merit in the present writ petitions. Reasons are that some other similarly situated daily waged workers, as the present respondents, had been paid wages at the rates mentioned in Annexure R-4, referred to hereinabove, after they obtained orders from Courts in their favour. The plea that was taken before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioners- …7… State was that they had paid wages to other similarly situated co-workers under the orders of the Court and since there was no order in favour of the respondents they were not entitled to the wages at higher rates. This was simply a technical plea, raised on behalf of the petitioners-State and the same goes once the respondents approached the Tribunal and obtained an order in their favour from the Tribunal. 8. Another reason for our holding that the writ petitions are without merit is that a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 (1) Sim. L.C. 391, has already held that no distinction can be made between those daily waged workers, who are employed against sanctioned posts, on being sponsored by employment exchanges and those who are engaged to work against non-sanctioned posts, without having been sponsored by any employment exchange, in respect of quantum of daily wages. In that case a notification revising the daily wages, similar to Annexure R-4, was the basis for claiming parity in wages. Language of that notification was similar to the language of Annexure R-4, except that the rates were different and the date of revision of wages was earlier in point of time compared to the effective date of rates revised vide Annexure R-4. Through that notification, which was dated 20.6.1992, wages had been revised with effect from 1.6.1992. In that notification also, it was provided that the revised rates were to be applicable only to those daily waged workers, who had been engaged against sanctioned posts, who were employed on being …8… sponsored by employment exchanges and whose wages were charged to the Head “Wages”. As regards daily waged workers similar to the respondents, the notification provided that they would be paid minimum wages, as fixed by the Labour and Employment Department. This Court held that no discrimination could have been made in the matter of daily waged workers engaged against sanctioned posts and those engaged against non-sanctioned posts. Consequently, this Court in the abovesaid case directed the payment of wages to the workers, who were not appointed against sanctioned posts or whose wages were not charged to the Head “Wages”, at the same rates as were being paid to the workers appointed against sanctioned posts, on being sponsored by employment exchanges and whose wages were charged to Head “Wages”. 9. In view of the abovestated position, the writ petitions are dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. August 26, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.