CWP No. 492 of 2006 23.11.2009 Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the petitioners. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, counsel for the respondent. This petition at the time of admission was ordered to be tagged with CWP No. 304 of 2003. We find that CWP No. 304 of 2003 has already been disposed of by a judgment of this court delivered in CWP No. 1577 of 2002 and other connected matters on 26th August, 2008. The writ petitions have been disposed of in the following terms:- “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-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 CWP No. 492 of 2006 \ 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 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 CWP No. 492 of 2006 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”. Admittedly, the question involved in the present petition is identical to that involved in the earlier decided matters. Therefore, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of paras- 7 and 8 of the decision rendered in CWP No. 1577 of 2002, as quoted hereinabove. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), J. (V.K. Ahuja), J. 23rd November, 2009 (vs)