CWP No.17815 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17815 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.10.2008 Lakhwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by Superintending Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation, Circle Ludhiana whereby their claim for equal pay for equal work has been rejected. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant minimum of pay scale to them as admissible to regular employees, for three years and two months prior to filing of CWP No.5479 of 1987. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they had earlier preferred CWP No.5479 of 1987 claiming regularization of their services and grant of regular pay scale. That writ petition came up for hearing on 6th December, 1995. As regards claim for equal pay for equal work, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the petitioners to approach the respondents authorities by CWP No.17815 of 2008 2 filing a representation. The petitioners thereafter gave a legal notice to the respondents. The same was rejected on 7th August, 1996 and both the reliefs i.e. regularization and grant of minimum of pay scale were declined. The petitioners thereafter preferred COCP No.1316 of 1996 alleging willful disobedience of order dated 6.12.1995. The said contempt petition was, however, dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred another writ petition which was registered as CWP No.11290 of 1998. During the pendency of the said writ petition, services of the petitioners were regularized. The writ petition was ultimately decided vide judgment dated 8th October, 2001 (Annexure P-4). However, later the petitioners moved Civil Misc. No.31192 of 2001 claiming therein that they be paid minimum of pay scale and arrears in respect thereof for a period of three years prior to filing of the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No.5479 of 1987. The said Civil Misc. was disposed by this Court on 20.12.2002. The operative part of the order passed while disposing of Civil Misc. No.31192 of 2001 reads thus: “In our opinion, these submissions should prevail and CWP No.5479 of 1987 should be deemed to have been alive in the contemplation of law or else CWP No.11290 of 1998 be deemed to be in continuation of CWP No.5479 of 1987. It is, therefore, ordered that the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh 1992 SLJ 1 and the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf. Respondents are further directed to allow the minimum of CWP No.17815 of 2008 3 the time scale of the post of Pump Operators and also usual allowances which is paid to regular Pump Operators upto the date they are regularised until they remain daily wagers etc., they shall continue to be paid at the minimum of the time scale together with usual allowances. The petitioners want that arrears of salary should be admissible to them for the period of 3 years preceding 18.8.1987 and thereafter from 18.8.1987 onwards. This prayer is also allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners shall be paid arrears of salary for the period 3 years preceding 18.8.1987 and thereafter from 18.8.1987 onwards. Sd/- M.L. Singhal, Judge December 20, 2002 Sd/- R.C. Kathuria, Judge.” The respondent State, however, filed an SLP before the apex court challenging the above order. The apex court was pleased to grant relief and set-aside the judgment. The matters were remanded back to the High Court for fresh decision. This order was passed on September 07, 2006. Finally, the matter came up before this court on October 03, 2007. The petitioners at this juncture limited their claim to grant of minimum of pay scale as had been extended to similarly situated employees engaged on regular basis. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to Chief Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Punjab, Patiala to determine the entitlement in respect of the emoluments payable to the petitioners keeping in view the decision rendered by the apex court in Uma Devi's case 2006 (3) SLR 1. Vide CWP No.17815 of 2008 4 Annexure P-9, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by holding that daily wagers are not at par with regular employees. As such, claim for equal pay by equal work was not made out. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He has vehemently contended that the petitioners deserved to be granted the minimum of pay scale at least three years prior to the filing of CWP No.5479 of 1987. However, we are of the considered view that this prayer of the petitioners is not tenable. The counsel has not been able to point out any defect with the impugned order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-9) whereby claim of the petitioners has been declined on the ground that daily wagers cannot be considered at par with the regular employees. Moreover, CWP No.5479 of 1987 was dismissed as withdrawn, whereafter order dated 7th August, 1996 was passed. Subsequently, when the petitioners preferred CWP No.11290 of 1998, during the pendency of the same their services were regularised. The petitioners have now again raked up the issue of grant of minimum pay scale for the period of three years prior to filing of CWP No.5479 of 1987. The same, in our view, is misconceived. This apart, the petitioners have not been able to show any legal right to claim a minimum of pay scale as admissible to the regular employees, during the period they remained daily wagers. The counsel for the petitioners has merely argued that minimum of pay scale as admissible to the regular employees should be granted to the petitioners CWP No.17815 of 2008 5 for the period they remained as daily wagers. However, it has not been shown how the order (Annexure P-9) is defective. No other argument has been advanced. We are, thus, of the considered view that no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 15, 2008 'rajpal'