419 1 1 CWPNO116of2009etCe 41 Ir IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHe DATEOF e fr 5CWP NO116of2009 eeePetitioners 0 Kumar and others 0 VERSUS t5 Stateof Punjab Others I 2flWPNoe13772of2008 d Z TcjPal Singh and others eeePetitioners r VERSUS I 82Others RespondentS 08 CWP NoO8530f1999 OO eeePetitioners r JaswinderSinghetce 7 Z VERSUS fl Stateof Punjab etce 4CWP No12553 of 1999 41 DaanSingh and others OeePetitioners J VERSUS Stateof Punjab 8i Others Respondents 5VP Noe191950f2008 ManjitSingh and othcrs eeePetitioners VERSUS Stateof Punjab O Others CWP Noe5461of2009 Narinder Singhand others eeePetitioners e 12 e 1 1 1e11r5 61 So eieIs21ieael el V4 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 420 2 Ir r CWPNO116 of2009 etce VERSUS StateofPunjab 8i Others Respondents of2009 JagjitSingh and others VERSUS 1 Stateof Punjab 8 Others 0 of2009 C llira Lal and others ePetitioncrs I C5 VERSUS Stateof Punjab Others e Z 9eCWPNoe82of2003 1 m BholaSingh and others eeePetitioners VERSUS 08 8 Others 0 b QO of2008 1 ev SubhashChand and others eeePetitioners Z ae VERSUS StateofPunjab Si Others 6 lleCWP Noe15204of2008 RajKumar and others Petitioners Cmav VERSUS O Others 2eCWP No19726 of2008 Makhan Singh and others eeePetitioners VERSUS Stateof Punjab SLOthers of2003 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 421 4 CWP NO116 of2009 etc 3 1 Hans Raj and others eeePetitioners 1 VERSUS Stateof Punjab8 Others Respondents Noe16772of2008 ShinderPal and others OeePetitioners VERSUS ua t StateofPunjab8 Others e e t Iee Iee 1 CORAM 45 HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2C 46 Z PRESENT MrlCLArora MrlllJlSi MrGSal MrRSManhas Mramesh Goel MrM1Sammi MrLSammi r Advocatesfor the 4 5 MsCharuTuli SrOAG Punjabfor c6 Permod KohliJe Qo K4 Sincecommon of law and facts are involvedin thesewrit te 2Z the same are of bythis common order For thesakeof 2 101 brevityfacts are beingtakenfrom CWP Nol 16of2009 The in thesepetitions are working on dailywage basis ln ll differentcapacities ln the Stateof Punjabparticularly the of 7 6 WaterSupplyand Sanitation The prayersin all thesepetitions are for grant of wages at the mlnimum of the pay scale as revised from time to tlme alongwithallowances and arrears of salaryfor a periodof three years thefilingofthe writ petitions The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No11211 of2002 which came to be disposed of vide order dated221 12007 with a direction to respondent Engineer PWD Public Health RWS Circle Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 422 CWP NO116 of2009 etce 4 al p take a decisionon the issueinvolvedkeeping in view decisionrenderedbytheSupreme Courtin thecase ofSecretary vs Uma Devi and others 2006 31SLR 1 bypassing a well a reasoned orderswithin six monthsfrom the dateof receiptof copy of the order On the basis of the aforesaidorder the EngineerWater and SanitationCircle Ludhiana 6 tr videhisorderdated253008 nnexure I129allegedly theclaim 0 ofthe for lt thisstageIt hasbeenheldthatunder C r the Government Policydated 151 22006 the is to be C orderedon completion of 10 years or more servicestrictlyaccording to r their seniorityin the concerned categoryagainstthe availableregular Z vacant postswith the It has been mentionedthat tr has beenmade in different against the avaiTable vacancies For PumpOperators has been madeupto638 08 10 for Mali Cum Chowkidarupto 570 and for Fitter Coolie upto 72 of the wmo 1ist whereas the numbers are much below and the Z case will beconsideredas andwhen theirtum comes l1m to theirseniorityIt is furtherstatedthat none of the juniorpersonsto the 7 havebeen 1t Learned counselfor the have argued thatthe claim of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitionswas not for CJ but for the grantof the minimum ofthe pay scalewhichhas beenextended to similarlysituatedpersons and largenumberof persons engagedon dailywage basis later tntime thanthe havebeen granted such benefits while denyingthe same treatment to the This fact is also evident from one of the judgmentdated Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 CWPNO116 of2009etCe 5 vel 47 22 12007passed 111CWPNo11211 of2002 fiied bythe The have filed this petition the aforesaid Annexure P 21andhavesought therelief for thegrantof wagesat theminimumofthe payscale In all theother also thereliefis for grant of wagesat the minimum ofthe pay scale The have relied ofthis CourtandtheHonble Courtearlier upon e a 1 passed 0 Howeier the claim ofthe is andresistedbythe 0 on the that the are not entitledto thesame 45 of the State wages as are to the r MsCharu Tulileamedcounselfor the has submiuedthattn Z lGr thelightof the ofthe Honble Supreme Courtin the case Uma m lr Devi supral the petitioners are not entitledto be It has I on behalf of the that bygrantingnilar furtherbeen 08 pay scales would amount to treating the unequals with equalswhich itself ae is in contravention to the of Articles 14 and 16 of the Z Constitution of India tl 1have heard Iearnedcounselfor theparties It is not that the 1 1 petitloners are in various as PumpOperators Maliime 1 Fitter Coolie Fitter HelperStoreMunshi and on such other C It is admittedposition that the are on daily wage basis for the last number of years in some cases maybe more than two decades lt is in the writ petition that thereis of thousandsof workingon dailywage basisin the State of PunjabThe duties and of the in their respectlve categoriesare same Theyperform identical functionsand share Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 1 e CWPNO0116of2009etc 6 1 d similar Eventhe duties the in their 2 categoriesare Theyare of the same State State Iistshavebeen for different and all the wlse petitionersareborne on thejoint lists A largee numberof daily wagerseven Iater in time stand whereas others are gettingminimum ofpay scaleundervarious of this court and P theHonble ApexCourt The havereferredto a largenumberof 0 byHonble Supreme Court andthisCourt Some of such 0 are noticedhere underl 4 In the case of StateofPunjab8 Others vse Devinder SinghSi Others Civil Noe4492of 1997 decided on the Z HonbleSupreme Court hasmadefollowingobservationsl m l 64n our view the of EqualPayfor I EqualWork can ensure to the to the 08 oo limitedextent that whentheywere found to have 7 beengivingsimilarwork as Ledger Z theycould have been paidthe minitnum Qm of the pay scale of a LedgerKeeperwhich was 1 available to Ledger 1 Clerks Learned counsel for the 4J could not successSllly contendthat suchan order shouldnot have been passedWe thereforeallow this appeal to the limited extent thatthoughthe are held limitedOIl the ofEqualPayfor EqualWorlC togetthe salaryavaiIable to the Ledger 41 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 425 e 7 4 CWPNO116of2009etce 1 Clerkswho are recruitedtheywould be entitledto the minimum of the pay scale of the Keeperswhich may be avaiIableto the LedgerKeepersand they 1 cannotbe paidthe runningtime scale as theywere not as Ledger 1 m ClerkSeen Il On the basisof the aforesaid CWP No10017 of 0 ar 1995was decided vide dated2081998 passedby this Court aa6m 0 wherein following observations havebeenmadelm 2C 64 I allow the writ petition and direct the Z to pay the minimum pay scale to the 2 1 fr petitioners available to the regularOctroi Clerks as IS r r with allowances on the basis and the 08 QO difference betweenthe emolumentsalreadypaidto each 4 a ofthe shall bepaidfor a periodof threeyears Z priorto thefilingofthe writ petition ie from 1221992 Cle The arrear SO calculated shall be paidwithin four monthsThere will be no order as to costs 11 A similar order came to bepassedbyHonble Supreme Court in the C caseof NagarPanchayatBhikhiwind vse Kulbir SinghSi Others Civil Appeal N00187911999decided on whereinit has beenobserved as underl 44espondents are under the theHighCourt for therelief thatthey are entitledto the scale of pay as is availableto r e Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 426 e CWPNO0116of2009etce 8 P r 1 in the scale The 7 Iearned Judge the said relief On theDivisionBenchhascome to conclusion that thereis no to interferewith the order of the learnedSingleJudge but further clarifiedthat So far as the arrears are concemed 1 C the would be entitledto draw at the 0 minimumofthe scaleofpayfor a periodof3 years 0 priorto dateofthe filingofthe writ petition 91 I C9 A Division Bench ofthis Court allowed CWP Noe7807of1999 on I 142000 relyingupon the above andmadefollowing Z observations 4tFhe doctrine of equalpay for equalwork I enshrinedin Article 396dlof the Constitution 08 Qo a dutyOll the publicemployer to pay 7 similarwagesto the doingsimilarwork Z and in view of the fact that the duties being by the are simiiar to those l ClerkslOctroiClerks and Drivers who are being paidsalaryin theregular time scale we flnd merit C1 in the claim of the thattheyare entitled to bepaidsalary in theregular payscale Hence the writ petitionis allowed The directed to pay to the are minimum of the regularpay scales for the posts of ClerkslOctroi Clerks and Drivers Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 427 e 9 e CWPNO1 lb of2009elce 1 1 1 Theyshallalso be paidDeamessAllowance and J other as may be admissibleto such undertheRules The different between the already paidto the and which may be to themin terms ofthe order shallbeconfinedto a periodof threeyars priorto m tr the dateof filingof thewrit The arrears 0 shall be paid to the within a periodof 0 four monthsOom thedateof receiptof a certiOed C copyofthis order X2 G Thepetitioners haveplacedon record a number of Z 5r this Court and Honble Court whereinthe aforesaid r havebeenrelied upon which are not beingadheredto C thecontraryMsCharu Tuli learnedcounselfor the To 08 C0 hasreliedupon State of Haryanaand another ve Tilak Raj and others 44 ae AlR 2003 Court 2658 In the aforesaid while Z the desirability of of doctrineof EqualPay for tl 1 EqualWorkqua the daily wagers in with the regularand 1 staff Honble Supreme Courtmadefollowing observationsl C 13 Equal Pay for equalwork ls a conceptwhich for its and wholesale identitybetween a group of claiming identicalpay scalesand the othergroup of who have eamedsuch pay scales The problem about cqualpay cannot alwaysbe translatedinto a mathematicalformula 93 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 428 e J CWP NO116 of2009 etce 10 r Referenceis also inade to passedin the case ofState of V Orissaand others vs Balaram Sahu and other220031 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 whereitl Honble Court madefollowing observationsl Ulleee Thoughequalpay for equalwork IS consideredto be a concomitantof Article 14 as 1L muchas equalwork for unequal work will also 0 be a negation ofthat rightequalpay would depend 40 uponnot onlythe nature or the volume of work C5 I out also on the differenceas e reliability and as well and though Z 5t 2 the functions may be the same but the tr lities do make a real and substantial difference 05 00 XXX XXX XXX XXX C am 13To claim a reliefon the basisofequality it lS Z e Clm for the claimantsto substantive a clearecutbasisof and a resultanthostilediscrimination before becoming eligibleto claim rightsonapar e with the other group ViSaeVlS an alleged discriminatioi 99 Another relied upon byMsCharu Tuli is in the case of State of Punjaband others vse Surinder Singhand another 2007 Il SCT 628 whereinfollowing observationshavebeenmadee 6The principle of equalpay for equalwork has gonea sea changeEarlier the Vlew of this Court Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 429 J CWPNO116 of2009etce 11 was that if two personsare the salne functionstheywill be entitled to same Wagese this viewhas been and now P the view of this court is that there should be and total identitybetween the two personssimilarly situated so as to grantof equal vm 4r payfor equalwork Recently this Court has held 0 that identitybetween two persons has to be C W and total In case of a regular C5 he has a selection processand0is 2C 4 servicesare regularEven ifa dailywage Z 5t IS the same 8lnctions as a regular Q t the authoritiesare not bound to grant 3 equalpay to such a person who is on a5 oo dailywagebasisie for a short term and 4t m0 has not faced the selection process Thus the 2 220 principleof equalpay for equalwork has to be m grantedonly if there is a total and complete identitybetweenthe two persons In this view we are by a decision of this Court in the C case of SeCeChandra 8i Others vse State of Jharkhand and others 2007 1 SCT 76i 2007 91 SCR 130 JT 2007 101SC 272 which has beenreferredto earlierin decisionsofthis Court XXX XXX XXX 8n view of the legalpositionas mentioned 4 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 430 e 1 CWP NO116 of2009 etc 12 9 1 1 abovewe are of theopinion lhat lhe viewlakenby the HonbleHighCourt pay scale of to the dailywage doesnot appearto be well founded we allow these and set asidethe orderof the HighCourt as alsotheTrial Court anddismiss Am l thesuitsfiled bythe herein 93 0 The dictum ofthe aforesaid reliedupon byMsCharu Tuli C IS thatthe doctrineof equalpay for equalwork cannot be invokedmerely 5 1 becausesome are similar kind of duties A lot of 4 otherconsiderationsare required to be seen for which the relevant material Z mustbe placed on record Similarissuewas consideredbythisCoun in the m l 4 caseofPardeepKumar and others vse StateofPunjaband others NP Z Noe8671 o1987 decided on 311002008n the aforesaidcase while a5 00 the j udginentof Honble SupremeCoun in the case of e m7 Surinder Singh supralfollowing observationshavebeenmade Z 44iowever in SurinderKumars case lpralthe Il Honble ApexCourt has ruled that the principle cannot be appliedunless there is total and complete identitybetweenthe two persons In the C r present case on account of various earlier judgment of this Court con6rmedby the Honble Supreme Court dailywagers in almost all the are gettingthe basic salaryin the pay scale of post occupiedby the regular and this benefit has been allowed to Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 431 1 CWPNO16of2009 13 1 4 1 1 l 1 three yearsand two 4 lhcmfor the l r monthsbefore the filingof the writ petitionThe are similarly situatedand thus thereis andtotalidentity betweenthe and the daiIy wagerswho are workingin other in the State The cannot be 1 denied the similarbenefitsas has been to 3 0 other daiIy wagersworkingin the same andother C in the StateofPunjabe 91 I 9 The sum and substance relieduPOnboth the SidS iS r e thatthe doctrineofequal pay for equalwork is onlywherethe Z 5r identitybetween the wagers and regular rS is established The specific avennents madeby the I the same duties as the petitioners are that theyare 06 QO are and a Iargenumberof dailywagers ee mw are theininiinulnof the pay scalebyVlrtue of various of Z 123 tlleHoilble Court and thisCoun as alsothat some time the posts Llm are These havenot beendeniedand in thereply filed by the The onlyarguments raisedon behalfof 6 Z the is that dailywagershave not beenselectedby any process C of selectionwhereastheregularly were dulyselected In view of the catena of this Court affirmed by the Honble Court referredto hereineabove I am of the consideredview that the cannot be denied a similartreatment as givento other daily wagersworkingin variOUS of the Statein the same categories to which the petitionersbelongEven the specificavennents of the Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 432 e CWP NO116of2009 etce 14 1 4 C1J thatpersonswho are laterin timethanthe petitioners are minimum payscales have not beendenied It is not to say that thereis totaland wholesaleidentitybetween dailywagersalreadygeltingminimum the ofpay scaleunderthe court ordersandthe In view of the above these e Thepetitioners shall m be entitled to minimum of thepay scale of the to Which theY 0 with all allowances as revisedfrom timeto time However therelief 0 1r shallbe contlnedto threeyears thefllingof the writ petitions 111 C5 each case A copy olthisjudgmenl bc placcd on recordon eachconcernedOlc Z 5 tr 4 X PERMOD KOHLII C6 JUDGE m 09072009 MFK Z l CL NOTEWhetherto bereferredto Reponer or not YESINO II SI 04 98 9 Anita 2014.02.12 14: 34 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document