1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2602 of 1997 UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ UPENDRA, NARAYAN SINGH, S/O SHRI KEDAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE JAISHREE, P.S. KARAKAT, DISTRICT ROHTAS, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.2609 of 1997 MOHAMMAD AKBAR ANSARI, S/O SHRI JOKHU ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE, P.O. P.S. SIKANDARPUR, DISTRICT BALIA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.2700 of 1997 KARMRAJ CHOUDHARY, S/O SHRI MAHADEO CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE NATAIYAN, PS. KUDRA, DISTRICT BHABUA AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.2711 of 1997 HIRA PASWAN,S/O SRI MAHENDRA PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE, P.O UGWAN, P.S. ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT, SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. ............PETITIONER. Versus 3 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3151 of 1997 NIZAMUDDIN KHAN,S/O LATE SHAKEER KHAN, R/O VILLAGE PYAREPUR, P.O CHAMP, P.S. AKHORIGOLA, DISTRICT ROHTAS, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3203 of 1997 4 DHARMDEO THAKUR, S/O SHRI BIGAN THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE & P.O NATAIYAN, P.S KUDRA, DISTRICT BHABHUA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT, SUNDAR BAHUARA, BHABHUA. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3211 of 1997 SATYA NARAIN PRASAD,S/O LATE DOMAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE HIRAWANPUR, P.O PAINAL, P.S BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABHUA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3213 of 1997 MAHFOOZ ALAM,S/O LATE MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAFIZ SIDDIQUI, R/O VILLAGE KATRA (BELTAL), P.O & P.S.BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, BHABUA. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.3214 of 1997 BHARAT LAL SHARMA, S/O SHRI BHOLA NATH SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE BADESAR, P.O JAMANIA, STATE P.S JAMNIYAN TAHSIL, DISTRICT GAZIPUR (U.P.) AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, BHABHUA. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 6 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3225 of 1997 NATHUNI PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE PHEKAN PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O MOHANIA, P.S. MOHANIA, DISTRICT BHABHUA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MASTER ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT SUNDAR BAHUARA, DISTRICT BHABUA. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3304 of 1997 MANINDRA SINGH, S/O LATE BHARAT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MAHRUAN, P.O GARIKHA, P.S. AMNAUR, DISTRICT CHAPRA, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER 7 ROLL, IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT, SUNDAR BAHUARA, BAHBHUA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.3412 of 1997 SHASHIRANJAN PANDEY, S/O LATE SURYANARAIN PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE BISHEL LADDUGAMA, P.O JAGIARA, P.S. BENIPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT WORKING ON MUSTER ROLL IN THE IRRIGATION PUMP PROJECT, SUNDAR BAHUARA, BHABHUA. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(MECHANICAL), WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BAHUARA PROJECT MITHAPUR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BHABUA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. 8 6.THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,BAHUARA PROJECT, NOAWAN, DISTRICT BHABUA. .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA (ORDER) (19.05.2011) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner on all theses cases. No one appears for the State. In a batch of all these cases, there are two fold prayers namely for quashing the order of reversal of all these petitioners from work charge establishment to daily wagers as also for grant of time scale of pay in the light of the direction given by this Court dated 18.09.1996 in L.P.A No. 274 of 1996 and its analogous cases. Mr. Sinha, would however very fairly submit that in view of the settled law on the issue of regularization, the petitioners cannot now seek for a writ of mandamus for their being retained as a work charge employee and/or regularization of their service but then the petitioners having long service 9 history of working on daily wages and also becoming work charge employee for sometime before being given reverted back to daily wages would still be entitled to get minimum of time scale of pay of the respective post held by them in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.09.1996 in the case of Rajendra Choudhary and another (in L.P.A NO. 274 of 1996 and its analogous cases. Noticing such submission, learned counsel for the State was earlier requested to take instructions on the issue of payment of salary of the petitioners in the lowest stage of the time scale of pay. The petitioners while placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rajendra Chaudhari (supra) has made a categorical pleading in paragraph 18 to 24 in C.W.J.C NO.2602 of 1997 which had been answered in paragraph 17 to 20 of the counter affidavit. The respondents in their counter affidavit had only taken a plea that the only difference between the cases of the petitioners and that of the batch cases 10 decided by the Division Bench in Rajendra chaudhari (supra) vide Annexure-8 would be that whereas the petitioners initial engagement on daily wages were made after 01.08.1985, those covered by the Division Bench judgment were engaged on daily wages before 01.08.1985. In the considered opinion of this Court, this by itself cannot be a ground for denying the limited relief of payment of wages to the petitioner in lowest scale of time scale of pay. It is not even disputed by the respondents that the petitioners are still continuing to work in the department for more than last 20 years and the date of engagement of petitioner Upendra Prasad Singh whose facts have been noticed for disposal of this batch of writ application by way of elucidation was himself said to have been engaged on 01.05.1990. In this context, it has to be noted that the authorities themselves have found the services of the petitioners indispensable, 11 inasmuch as, the concerned controlling authority under whom the petitioners were directly reporting on duty had stated that all these petitioners are working as daily wagers for a long period and their services not only have been utilized in the construction but in maintenance and supervision for a long time and as such, they cannot be treated like a normal daily wagers, inasmuch as, they all are skilled workers who are in fact fit to be brought in the work charge establishment. Such report of the concerned controlling engineer in the counter affidavit has not been relied but then the respondents also have not denied the facts either with regard to the long continuation of the petitioners in service on daily wages or they being not skilled workers. In such a situation, this Court would find that they would be entitled for grant of minimum time scale of pay as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli vs State of U.P, reported in 1986(1)SCC 637,wherein, the Apex Court having noticed the stand of the Central Government that the 12 persons continuing on daily wages would be entitled to draw salary only on daily basis and not on wages as other similarly employed persons doing the identical work had held that:- 'This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution. This article declares that there should be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for equal work of equal value.........It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as class IV employees.' In fact the aforesaid judgment in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra) was also approved in the case of Surinder Singh and 13 Another vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D, reported in 1986(1) SCC 639. It has to be also noticed that the following ratio in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra), the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.09.1996 in L.P.A No. 274 of 1996 while rejecting the claim for regularization of similarly situated daily wagers or bringing them even in work charge establishment had held that such daily wagers may not be entitled for regularization, but then in fact, all other similarly situated employees would be entitled to be paid their salary in the lowest time scale of pay admittedly to the respective post on which they are working. The said order was passed in relation to the daily wage employees of the same department in which the petitioners are working i.e Water Resources Department and as noted above the only line of distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit, is that engagement of the petitioners on daily wages had been made after 01.08.1985, whereas those covered by the 14 Division Bench judgment of daily wages were engaged before 01.08.1985. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cut off date of engagement on daily wages would, in no event, be the deciding factor for payment of wages, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra). It has to be noted that the judgment in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli (supra) has been approved and followed by the Apex Court even in the subsequent case of State of U.P vs Putti Lal, reported in 2006(9)SCC 337, while passing an exactly similar order as was passed by the Division Bench refusing regularization of daily wagers but directing for payment of their salary in the minimum pay scale as is available to the counter part in the Government until their services were regularized and they were given regular scale of pay. This Court would however fail in its duty if it does not notice that subsequently three judges Bench in the case of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors vs Charanjit 15 Singh and Ors, reported in 2006(9)SCC 321 had considered the law on the subject with some greater detail, but even in that case, the view taken by three judges bench in the case of Putti Lal (supra) was not disturbed and the same was merely distinguished by recording that there was no direction to pay such minimum pay scale from the retrospective date as was done by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Charanjit Singh (supra). In the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio of Charanjit Singh is very clear that the Principle of equality of work and service conditions have to be decided before directing for payment of salary of equal wages. Here in this case, there is no dispute of this nature, inasmuch as, the petitioners while working on daily wages were brought in work charge establishment for doing the same work and in fact, even after they being reverted back on daily wages after cancelling their absorption in the work charge establishment are doing the same nature of skilled work as was reported by the authority. 16 Obviously in such a situation the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli(supra) and reiterated in the case of Putti Lal (supra) will have to be followed especially when in the same department a direction was also given by Division Bench of this Court, which order has become final in absence of any appeal preferred by the State of Bihar. Before parting with, this court must also take into consideration a supplementary counter affidavit which has been filed today, wherein, reliance has been placed on an order of the Apex Court dated 30.10.2000 in the case of State of Bihar and Ors vs Laghu Sichai Karmachari Sangh & Ors, wherein, a direction was given by this Court for regularizing the services of daily wages working as Chaukidar Pump Operator etc during the period of from 1980 to 1985 in terms of the scheme framed by the State of Bihar dated 16.09.1993, as also payment of wages till finalization of consideration of such regularization was set aside by the Apex court recording as follows:- 'We are of the view that the 17 regularisation of the writ petitioners should be done in accordance with the procedure indicated in the scheme dated 18.06.1993 and it should apply to the persons who satisfy all the conditions mentioned in the scheme. The direction given by the learned Single Judge that pending regularisation of these daily wage workers, they should get the minimum of the pay scale, is set aside.' It would thus be clear that what was not approved by the Apex Court was grant of minimum of pay scale to such persons whose cases of regularization had yet to be considered in accordance with scheme, inasmuch as, the Apex Court had found that first of all their cases should have been considered for regularization of their service instead of giving them interim relief of their salary in the minimum of the pay scale. Obviously the facts noted by the Apex Court in its order dated 30.10.2000, would make the said order not only distinguishable but as this Court has found that the payment of wages in the minimum of pay scale has been approved by the Apex Court itself in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli(supra) and has found its approval in the case of Putti Lal (supra), this Court noticing the facts of the present case where 18 all the petitioners are working on daily wages at least for 20 years if not more and have also no hope of their being regularized in service, would direct respondents to at least pay the salary of the petitioners in the same terms as was directed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.09.1996 in L.P.A No. 274 of 1996(Annexure-8). It is however, made clear that such payment shall be made from the date of this order i.e. today in view of the subsequent clarification made by the Apex court in the case of Putti Lal(supra) deprecating grant of retrospective benefit from the date of filing of the writ application. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Patna High Court, Dated the 19th of May, 2011 N.A.F.R./Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)