ORDER

Petitioners, five in number, are working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of the Executive Officer, City Board, Ghaziabad. We have been told that the nature of work is essentially slum clearance and the project is financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and partly by World Bank funds. Petitioners have alleged that they are employed on daily rate basis and on an average receive Rs. 1,000/- per month. It is stated that no payment is made for the holidays and they are not entitled to any other benefit for the work done. Reliance has been placed on this Courts decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers and some other decisions including the one in the case of Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396.

2. From the facts placed before us, it appears that the scheme under which the petitioners are working is of a very specific nature. There is no permanent need for the work and since it is a project for a particular purpose, it will not be possible to direct that the petitioners may be regularised in service. From the materials, however, it appears that similarly qualified engineers when employed for the work which the petitioners are called upon to do, on regular basis are paid a minimum grade pay of Rs. 1,400/-. We see no justification to discriminate between the petitioners and the regularly employed Junior Engineers who on appointment receive Rs. 1,400/-. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be paid a sum of Rs. 1,400/- per month instead of Rs. 1,000/- as at present and since the pay shall be for the month the question of holidays will not be taken into account.

3. We further clarify that petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their service by recruitment through the State Public Service Commission for vacancies other than employment under the project and as and when such vacancies arise and are duly notified the claim of the petitioners be considered for appointment subject to their satisfying the requisite qualifications prescribed therefor under the rules and the employer would not stand in the way of regularisation of their service. It is open to the State Public Service Commission to consider if any weightage would be available to them for their service but we make no direction. Continuity of service of the petitioners may be taken into account for overcoming the age bar as directed in similar cases. Mr. Rana has agree that this will be given effect to from 1st October, 1991.

4. Writ Petition is disposed of. No cost.

WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 534 AND 766 OF 1991

5. Some of the petitioners in these applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution are degree-holders in Engineering and are designated as Assistant Engineers while the others are diploma holders in Engineering and are designated as Junior Engineers. They are employed on daily rated basis under the U. P. Bridge Corporation - respondent No.3 which is a public sector undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main dispute canvassed in these writ petitions is two fold : - (1) regarding the appropriate salary for the work done; and (2) regularisation of service. From the papers placed before us and submissions advanced at the bar we find that the regular employees are being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- for diploma holders and Rupees 1,800/- for degree-holders whereas the petitioners who are employed on casual basis are being paid at the rate of Rs.1,800/- (for degree-holders) and Rs.1,280/- (for diploma holders). The distinction maintained has been explained by saying that since they are not regular employees no payment is being made for the holidays when no work is taken. It is difficult to accept this contention. The petitioner-degree-holders are paid at the same rate as the regular degree-holders. There is no reason to make distinction between petitioner-diploma holders and the regular diploma holders. Besides even under the Minimum W