2016 Supreme(SC) 869

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Jagjit Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10356, 10357 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 31676, 31677 CC Nos. 15616, 16434 of 2011); Civil Appeal Nos. 10358, 10360, 10361, 10366 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 37162, 37164, 37165 of 2012; 4340 of 2014); Civil Appeal Nos. 211, 212, 214, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 257, 260, 262, 966, 2231, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2702, 7150, 8248, 8979, 9295 of 2013 with 871 & 10527 of 2014
Decided On : 26-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employees held entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Parity of pay – Equal pay for equal work – Parity in duties and responsibilities of subject post with the reference post has to be proved by the person claiming parity of pay – Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be denied parity of pay merely because they belong to different departments of Government – For claiming parity in pay, the duties of the two posts should be functionally equal, and of the same quality and sensitivity – There cannot be parity of pay among posts having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities even though they may have same nomenclature – Nature and volume of work as also level of responsibility of the subject and reference posts should be the same – An employee appointed on a temporary basis has no claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale – Persons granted ‘selection grade’ in the same post on the basis of merit, or seniority etc. may have different pay scale – Requisite qualification for a post is determined as required by the duties and responsibilities of the post – Hence persons holding posts with different requisite qualifications for recruitment cannot claim parity – Parity in pay cannot be claimed if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different – Parity can also not be claimed between posts under different establishment and management, or under same management but different geographical locations, or paid out of different funds – Parity in pay cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay-scale. (Para 42)

       (2003) 5 SCC 188; (2011) 2 SCC 452; (2011) 11 SCC 122; (2014) 6 SCC 756; (1982) 1 SCC 618; (1983) 1 SCC 304; (1988) 3 SCC 91; (1989) 2 SCC 235; (1991) 1 SCC 619; (2007) 8 SCC 279; (2002) 6 SCC 72; (2012) 12 SCC 666; (2002) 4 SCC 556; (1989) 1 SCC 121; (2004) 1 SCC 347; (2000) 8 SCC 580; (1989) 4 SCC 459; (2008) 10 SCC 1; (2010) 5 SCC 225 – Relied upon

       (b) Service law – Equal pay for equal work – Temporary and regular employees – Article 39 of the Constitution – Not paying same wage to temporary employees as regular employees despite the work being the same – Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Manner of selection and appointment and tenure of appointment – Immaterial – Temporary employee cannot be denied at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre – Article 38(2), Constitution of India – Doing so would violate Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India – Concept of equality would apply to the issue of pay parity but not to issues of absorption/regularization. (Para 44)

       (1986) 1 SCC 637; (1986) 1 SCC 639; (1983) 1 SCC 304; (1987) 4 SCC 634; (1988) 1 SCC 122; (1998) 9 SCC 595; (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2006) 9 SCC 321; (1996) 11 SCC 77; (2003) 6 SCC 123; (2003) 5 SCC 188; (2004) 1 SCC 347; (2006) 9 SCC 337; (2010) 7 SCC 739 – Relied upon

       (c) Service law – Equal pay for equal work – Pay parity would be denied unless parity in duties and responsibilities of the posts is established – Daily-wagers hold no post – Cannot be equated with regular employees. (Para 45

       (1989) 4 SCC 459; (1991) 1 SCC 619; (2003) 6 SCC 123; (2009) 9 SCC 514 – Relied upon

       (1996) 11 SCC 77 – Distinguished

       (2010) 4 SCC 179 – Referred

       (d) Service law – Principle of equal pay for equal work – Has been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like) – Determining artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour – Fallacious – Articles 14, 16, 38 and 39, Constitution of India – Instantly all concerned temporary employees held entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post. (Para 54, 55, 58)

       Facts of the case:

       The single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that temporary employees (daily-wagers working as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars etc.) were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees.

       The Division Bench allowed the LPA against the judgment of the single Judge.

       Another Division Bench in another case concluded conversely as against the judgment rendered by the earlier division bench which was not brought to its notice.

       The issue which presently arises is whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, alongwith dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts.

       The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees.

       Finding of the Court:

       Decision rendered by the full bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 14796 of 2003), dated 11.11.2011; and in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPA no. 337 of 2003, decided on 7.1.2009) are set aside. The decision rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA no. 1024 of 2009, decided on 30.8.2010) affirmed with the modification that the concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.