Case: State Of Punjab  Vs. Surjit Singh

Applicability of the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work is in question in these appeals.They arise out of the final judgment and order dated 20th December, 2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High court at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.6780 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents has been allowed.Respondents herein were appointed in different capacities by the Public Health Department of the State of Punjab. They were admittedly appointed as daily wager. Only some of them were appointed after their names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. No recruitment process was followed. Constitutional norm of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been adhered to. They were paid wages in terms of the offer of appointment made to them. Their names were being maintained in the Muster Roll.Inter alia, on the premise that the respondents have put in a number of years of service and they were entitled to the benefit of equal pay for equal work, they filed several writ applications.By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ applications were allowed.Relying on or on the basis of a Full Bench decision of the said Court in Ranbir Singh vs. State of Haryana [1998 (2) Service Cases Today 189] , the High Court opined:" In view of the fact that petitioners who are similarly situated like the present petitioners have been granted the relief, we see no reason to deny the relief to the petitioners even in these petitions. The petitioners have admittedly worked for a considerable period in the department of the State Government continuously uninterrupted and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The State itself is paying different salary on monthly basis to these persons, to some the minimum wages and to some on the basis of the Common Scheduled Rates. We see no reason why the petitioners should not be placed at parity to the limited extent that they should be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale with deafness allowance alone as granted by the Honble Apex Court in the recent cases.Another factor which we have to notice is that some of the petitioners had not even completed a period of (sic) pronounced by the State dated January 23, 2001. In fact, few of them were employed in the year 1996 and 1997, as such we find it difficult to grant them the relief as aforenoticed even on the date of institution of the writ petitions. It would be just, fair and equitable that the petitioners are granted minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance alone from the date of the judgment, while the other petitioners would be entitled to the same relief from the date of filing the present petition. The interest claimed by the petitioner is not founded on any reasonable grounds and for the reasons stated in the case of Vijay Kumar (supra), we decline the prayer of the petitioners for grant of interest.Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the principle of `equal pay for equal work should not be applied automatically. Drawing our attention to various decisions of this Court, it was urged for the purpose of applicability of the said doctrine, the court is not only required to look to the pleadings of the parties but also must arrive at a decision that all the ingredients therefor are established. It was urged that the principle of `equal pay for equal work is not only dependent upon the nature, quality and quantity of the work but equal value therefor. A large number of factors are relevant for the purpose of grant of relief in terms of the said doctrine. For the said purpose, the court must not only arrive at the equal identity of group but also the complete and wholesale identity.Mr. Manoj Swarup and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the respondents having worked for a long time and as their counter-parts in different departments who were absolutely similarly situated had filed the writ applications and they have been granted reliefs, there is absolutely no reason as to why they should be differently treated.In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the order dated 18.4.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6162 of 1995 [Gurcharan Singh Kahlon & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.], wherein it was held as under:"For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners salary in the regular pay scale by fixing their pay at the minimum of that pay scale with effect from the date of the filing of this writ petition i.e. 26.4.1995. The petitioners shall get the benefit of dearness allowance on the minimum of regular pay scale. Arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within four months of the submission of a certified copy of this order. It is however, made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners to claim regularization of service. We also make it clear that it would be open to the respondents to dispense with the service of those employees who do not fulfil the qualifications, but while doing so the respondents shall comply with the requirements of the statutory provisions like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."The learned counsel would contend that Special Leave Petitions preferred thereagainst have been disposed of by this Court by an order dated 26.4.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2001 etc. etc., which reads as under:"1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience facts are being taken from Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2001.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 18.4.1996. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondents to pay to the petitioners salary in the regular pay scale by fixing their pay at the minimum of the pay scale with effect from the date of the filing of the writ petition i.e. 26.4.1995. It was further directed that the petitioners shall get the benefit of dearness allowance on the minimum of pay scale and arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within four months of the submission of a certified copy of this order. It was also mentioned that this order shall not entitle the petitioners to claim regularization of services and it will be open to the respondents to dispense with the services of those employees who do not fulfill qualifications but while doing so the respondents shall comply with the requirements of the statutory provisions like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition was filed but the operation of the order of the High Court was not stayed by this Court. The net result was that the State of Punjab started paying the minimum of pay scale to all those petitioners from the date of the judgment of the High Court. All the writ petitioners are getting the minimum pay-scale from 1996

Reasoning:
While laying down the law that regularization under the Constitutional scheme is wholly impermissible, the Court had issued certain directions relating to the employees in the services of Commercial Taxes Department as noticed hereinbefore. The employees of the Commercial Taxes Department were in service for more than 10 years. They were appointed inThey were sought to be regularized in terms of a scheme. Recommendations were made by the Director, Commercial Taxes for their absorption. It was only when such recommendations were not acceded to, the Administrative Tribunal was approached. It rejected theiris in the aforementioned factual backdrop, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed:"Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that theseearners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are onlyearners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos.and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them."We, therefore, do not see that any law has been laid down in paragraph 55 of the judgment. Directions were issued in view of the limited controversy. As indicated, the States grievances were limited.Reliance placed by Mr. Gupta on Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corpn. v. G.S. Uppal [(2008) 7 SCC 375 at 384] is equally meritless. In that case, the question involved was application of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee. As a discriminatory treatment was meted out to the appellants therein, this Court interfered opining that the decision of the Government is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial.Further contention of Mr. Gupta is that his clients had been appointed upon undertaking the due process of recruitment. It was not so, as while making appointments, the recruitment rules had not been followed. There had been no advertisement. How and in what manner the names were called from the employment exchange has not been disclosed. Ordinarily a large number of people would not be interested in applying for appointment against a Class III or Class IV post so long the appointment is contractual. Interviews were also taken by a Committee which was not competent therefor as appointment in the post of Clerk and above were required to be made by the Public Serviceplaced by the High Court is Civil Appeal Nos.ate of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.is also misplaced. Therein the leave was granted purported to be on the basis of the benefit of regulargranted by other department in terms of the decision of the High court in Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Punjab [C.W.P. No. 9623 of 1993 decided on 12.4.1994]. The main plank of the case of the workmen therein was that they had been not only working for a long time it was urged that their regularwere holding similar posts and their postings are beinghe High Court noticed that this Court in several decisions had arrived at an opinion that the principle of `equal pay for equal work cannot be applied blindly but chose to rely upon the decision of this Court in Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P. [(1986) 1 SCC 637].With utmost respect, the principle, as indicated hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. We are bound by the decisions of large benches. This Court had been insisting on strict pleadings and proof of various factors as indicated hereto before.Furthermore, the burden of proof even in that case had wrongly been placed on the State which in fact lay on the writ petitioners claiming similar benefits. The factual matrix obtaining in the said case particularly similar qualification, interchangeability of the positions within the regular employees and the casual employees and other relevant factors which have been noticed by us also had some role to play.This Court in Gurcharan Singh Kahlon (supra) although noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] declined to interfere with the order of the High Court having regard to the fact that no order of stay having been passed, the State of Punjab had implemented the order of the High Court. Furthermore, a scheme of regularization had already been drawn up. It is of some significance to notice that similar orders passed by some Benches of this Court relying on or on the basis of Paragraph 53 in Uma Devi (supra)Para 43 and other paragraphs thereof, has been severally criticized by this Court in Official Liquidator (supra). We are bound by the law laid down therein.We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the State is directed to examine the cases of the respondents herein by appointing an Expert Committee as to whether the principles of law laid down herein, viz., as to whether the respondents satisfy the factors for invocation of the decision in Charanjit Singh (supra) in its entirety including the question of appointment in terms of the recruitment rules have been followed. It has a positive concept.We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the learned counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now well known that the equality clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour is legal and not illegal. It has a positive concept.