IMPORTANT POINTS
Arrears should be payable from the date the High Court rendered its judgment.
Adjudication as in instant case should be made in rem rather than in persona. All similarly situated employees should be made entitled to the relief irrespective of whether they approached the High Court or not.

JUDGMENT

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI.

The respondents before this Court were engaged as conductors and drivers under statutory rules, framed by the State of Haryana, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under the concerned statutory rules, even though conductors and drivers were engaged after following due process, they were paid different wages. Their initial wages were paid by treating them as daily wagers, their wages were then enhanced by treating them as contract labourers, and finally, they were paid regular wages in the regular pay scale.

2. 195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the High Court, seeking wages in the regular scale of pay, with effect from the date of their entry into service. All those writ petitions came to be disposed of, by a common order dated 1.4.2013 (or by placing reliance on the said order). The operative part of the above order, is being extracted hereunder:

"We are, therefore, of the opinion that placing the petitioners on consolidated salary is impermissible and the rules to this extent are unconstitutional and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The placing of the petitioners in pay scales meant for Grade-II and two years thereafter in Grade-I cannot be permissible. The petitioners, thus, would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their initial appointments and their pay shall be fixed accordingly. However, insofar as arrears of pay are concerned, they will be entitled to the arrears for three years and two months' period prior to the date of filing of these petitions."

(emphasis is ours)

3. It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which the High Court arrived at the above decision. Accordingly, a relevant part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons stand recorded, is being extracted hereunder:

"11. The admitted facts, which are appearing on record, are that the recruitment rules for appointment to the posts of Drivers and conductors are same whether they are appointed on contract basis initially or are given the pay scales after rendering the services for specified number of years. All these petitioners fulfil those eligibility conditions contained in the recruitment rules. It is also an admitted position on record that there was a proper selection procedure followed by issuing the advertisement and making the selection through the Staff Selection Board/Service Commission. The petitioners were selected on merits. From day one they started doing the job of Driver and Conductor which is the same as performed by the Drivers/Conductors who are placed in the regular pay scale. It is, thus, not in dispute that the posts in question were advertised for open competition for direct recruitment and all the petitioners were appointed through the selection process made by the Staff Selection Commission after giving opportunity to each and every eligible person. The only reason for putting them on contract/fixed salary in the beginning and bringing them on the regular pay scale after they render service for specified period is that the provisions are made with objective to recruit best Drivers and Conductors who can provide best services to the commuting public. It is not understood as to how this objective is achieved by putting the Drivers and Conductors initially on the fixed salary and bringing them in graded pay scales after 4/6 years. The aforesaid objective can well be achieved by putting the Drivers and Conductors after their appointment initially on probation and watching their work and conduct during the period of probation. The respondents have not been able to dislodge the weighty and meritorious contention of the petitioners that paying different salary even after getting same work offends the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'."

(emphasis is ours)

4. The judgment rendered by the High Court on 1.4.2013, has been assailed by the State of Haryana, by filing a large number of special leave petitions. Leave was g