Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- These are five writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by two trade unions, a society formed by Law students of the University College and two individuals asking for quashing of the Karnataka Governments Notification of 12th March, 1982, and for directions to confirm the daily rated and monthly rated employees as regular government servants and for payment of normal salary at the rates prescribed for the appropriate categories of the Government servants and other service benefits. It has been pleaded that about 50,000 such workers are employed in the different Government establishments and though many of them have put in 16 to 20 years of continuous service - which is proof of the fact that there is permanent need for the jobs they perform - they have not been regularised in their service and are not being paid equal pay for equal work as has been mandated by this Court by way of implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

2. A two-Judge Bench of this Court dealing with these writ petitions on 14th July, 1988*, directed:

* Reported in (1988) 3 JT 120 (SC)

"We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, only on one of the questions involved in this case viz. whether the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in paragraph 1 of the Governments Order No. PWD 100 PWC 83, Bangalore dated 12th January, 1984 and the monthly rated Sowdies etc. referred to in the Governments Order No. PWD 120 PWC 84 dated 4th December, 1984 should be, paid the same salary as the salary paid to Gangmen and Sowdies respectively who are employed regularly by the State Government. As we are of the view that the principle enunciated by this Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122 is applicable to this case also, we direct the Government of Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed Gangmen or Sowdies, as the case may be, but without any increment with effect from 1-7-1988. The question whether they are entitled to any arrears for the period between the date on which their services were regularised under the State Governments Orders and 1-7-1998 will be considered along with the other questions involved in this case at the final hearing. This case shall stand adjourned by three months. In the meanwhile we permit the State Government to frame a more rational scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. The case need not be treated as part-heard."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the State of Karnataka has filed a draft scheme, copies of which have been served on the parties, their response to the draft scheme has been received and the matter has been heard at length.

4. A three-Judge Bench in Randhir Singh V. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 observed:

"It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work for both men and women has a Directive principle of State Policy. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the