Judgment :

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The appellants were appointed during 1978-1981 on daily wage basis by the first respondent (UP Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short `the Bank'), by way of stop gap arrangement. Upto 30.6.1981, they were on daily wages. From 1.7.1981, they were paid consolidated salary of Rs.368/- per month which was increased to Rs.575/- per month from 1.4.1982. From 1.7.1983, they were extended the benefit of the minimum in the pay scale applicable to regular employees, i.e. Rs.325/- per month, with allowances, but without yearly increments.

3. On 30.7.1985, the UP Regularisation of Ad-hoc appointments (on posts within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board)Regulations, 1985 were notified and came into force. In terms of the said rules, the appellants were regularised on different dates --1.10.1985, 9.12.1985, 24.4.1986 and 29.9.1986 and they were also extended the benefit of regular pay scales with all allowances. In the year 1990, they approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition seeking the benefit of regular pay scale, allowances and other benefits which were extended to regular employees, with effect from the date of their stop gap or ad-hoc appointment.

4. A learned single Judge of the High court, by order dated 6.7.2005, allowed the writ petitions and directed the first respondent-Bank to treat the appellants on par with employees, who were the petitioners in Jai Kishan & Ors. vs. UP Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors., (WP No.1941 of 1985 and connected cases which were decided by the High Court on 3.3.1989). In Jai Kishan, the High Court had affirmed the decision of the Labour Court directing that certain employees of the Bank (whose cases were espoused by the Union) shall be extended the benefit of pay scale by starting with a minimum of Rs.325/-per month with effect from 1.7.1981 with annual increments in the regular pay scale and all other allowances. This direction was issued on a concession by the learned counsel for the Bank given on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, with respect to three employees. The effect of the judgment of the learned single Judge was that the appellants were also to be extended the benefit of the regular pay scale with annual increments with effect from 1.7.1981. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank appealed and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the special appeals of the Bank, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

5. The appellants submit that the Division Bench found that there was no significant difference between the type of work which the appellants were rendering and the type of work which their counterparts who were regularly employed were rendering at the relevant point of time. They also submitted that the Bank did not dispute the fact that the petitioners in Jai Kishan who were given the benefit of the regular pay scales, were similarly placed as the appellants. They contend that the decision in Jai Kishan having become final the Bank cannot discriminate between the petitioners in the case of Jai Kishan and other similarly situated employees like appellants and, therefore, they are also entitled to the same reliefs.

6. We are of the view that the real issue is whether persons employed on stop gap or ad hoc basis were entitled to the benefit of pay scales with increments during the period of service on daily or stop-gap or ad hoc basis. Unless the appellants are able to establish that either under the contract, or applicable rules, or settled principles of service jurisprudence, they are entitled to the benefit of pay scale with increments during the period of their stop-gap/ad-hoc service, it cannot be said the appellants have the right to claim the benefit of pay scales with increments. Admittedly, the appellants do not claim the said relief on the basis of any rules or contract. T