Point of law : Daily wage employees employed by the State Government would be entitled to equal pay for equal work that they render under the State Government
If a Government servant is entitled to 100% of the Dearness Allowance, it cannot be curtailed to a daily wage employee coming under the Act, as the Act itself confers on the daily wage employee admissible Dearness Allowance, which cannot mean anything but 100% of Dearness Allowance.

ORDER :

1. These cluster of petitions are filed by the Associations comprising of daily wage employees seeking to declare among others Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Rules, 2013 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) as ultra vires to Sections 2(a) and 4(2) of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (‘the Act’ for short) and have called in question those Government orders/ memoranda issued from time to time, which run counter to the provisions of the Act and the Rules resulting in taking away certain benefits available to the petitioners thereunder.

2. Sans unnecessary details, brief facts leading to the filing of present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, which are almost similar in all the cases, are as follows:-

Petitioner is a Union of daily wage employees working in various departments of Government and Corporations which are under the control of Government. The limited grievance of the petitioners in all these cases is that the Government after promulgation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder issued Government orders and memoranda taking away the benefits conferred upon such employees under the Act. Since the grievance is concerning Government orders/Memoranda which run counter to the Act, no other facts pertaining to the employees are narrated. It is not in dispute that all the employees in all these petitions who are a part of the petitioners have completed 10 years of service and have been brought under the Act.

3. Heard Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi learned counsel along with Sri. D.P. Ambekar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Y.H. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

4. The learned counsel Sri. Sanjay Joshi submits that the Act in unequivocal terms granted certain benefits to the employees who were brought under the Act by framing Rules under the Act. After framing of the Rules, various Official Memoranda are issued by the respective departments where the employees are working at their whim and fancy, all contrary to the Act. It is his submission that the benefit that is conferred on daily wage employees under the Act is taken away by Official Memoranda issued which run counter to the Act. He also further submits that the Government order which takes away the benefits accorded under the Act is a nullity in law and will have to be set aside.

4.1. On the other hand, Sri. Y.H. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State would submit that the grievance of petitioners in so far as it pertains to issuance of notifications/official memoranda by respective departments are all withdrawn by the State by subsequent notifications dated 12-07-2017, 16.05.2019 and 10-01-2020. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the said notifications and official memoranda would take care of the grievance of the petitioners as every order that the petitioners have called in question have since been withdrawn and all of them have been issued during the pendency of the writ petitions, as a result of which, the writ petitions are rendered infructuous.

4.2. He would further submit that if any other grievance of the petitioners would subsist, it is open to them to give representations to the respective departments and the departments would consider the same in accordance with law and would submit that writ petitions be disposed of as having become infructuous.

5. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the materials on record.

6. Since the issue revolves a round the Act, the Rules and Government orders, the Objects and Reasons and relevant provisions of the Act that are germane for consideration of the lis are extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:

“Objects and Reasons for the Enactment - An Act to pro