Daily wage employees appointed by competent authorities against sanctioned and vacant posts, after following due selection process, are entitled to regularisation of their services and equal pay for equal work, even if there are certain irregularities in their appointments.

N. Pandey, J.

In these writ petitions, petitioners, who are Class III and IV employees have come up before this Court with a grievance that although they have been working till this day on different posts from 1978 to 1984, but their services have not been regularised nor they are being paid equal scale and emoluments at par to the scales available to other employees of different cadres discharging same nature of work under the same agency called, "Gandak Command Area and Development Agency" (for short, Agency).

By means of an amendment petition, a prayer has also been made to restrain the respondents from terminating petitioners' services.

2. Short facts of these cases are stated hereunder. The Agency in question was established under section 3 of the Bihar Agricultural & Rural Area Development Agency Act, 1978, since last several years for various developmental and irrigational work in the area. The State Government, vide its order no. 349/CAD, dated 30th September, 1975, had empowered the respondent Agency to appoint and create posts carrying scale of the respective employees upto Rs.1600/- per month. The PWD Code and other service regulations of the Government of Bihar were adopted by the respondent Agency for its employees working under it. Since at the relevant time, the State Government had put restrictions against regular appointment, even on sanctioned posts, the petitioners were appointed as daily-rated workmen, but against sanctioned posts.

3. Further case of the petitioners is that at the time of appointment, their eligibility, suitability and fitness were also examined along with other candidates after advertisement of vacancies on the notice board, as well as newspaper. The petitioners, therefore, having worked continously for several years, made representations before various authorities for regularisation of their services. The Chairman-cum-Development Commissioner of the Agency, also having regard to the demand of the petitioners as also the request of the Government vide letter dated 12th November, 1987, communicated a copy of the resolutions of the Board, dated 27.2.1987, contained in Annexures 8, 9 and 10 and the subsequent decision dated 13.3.1989, giving details of sanctioned posts and employees working against such posts on daily wages. It was also requested that having regard to continuous service of daily wage employees, working against sanctioned posts, necessary guidelines be issued for their regularisation.

4. In the instant case; petitioners were appointed on various date commencing from the year 1978-79 to 198384, which would also be evident from the letter of the State Government dated 12th November, 1987, contained in Annexure 7. Further claim of the petitioners is that undisputedly, the Chairman of the Agency was vested with the powers to make appointment of Class III and IV employees. Therefore, the petitioners' initial appointments by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer were later affirmed by the order of Chairman as would be evident from the communication of the Secretary of the Agency vide letter dated 27th April, 1988.

5. Mr. Ojha contended that a bare reference to the facts noticed above, it can be safely inferred that appointment of the petitioners was made on due selection by a recognised committee after advertisement of the posts as also calling the names from the Employment Exchange. This is not a case where one can allege that such appointments were made on backdoor basis without observing the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He contended that different other employees of the Sane Command Authority appointed in similar manner were regularised since they had also put considerable length of service. He stated that a bare reference to the minutes of the proceeding of the respondent Agency, copies of which are Annexures 8, 9, 10 and 11, would reveal that most of the petitioners are working against sanctioned posts and there are several other sanc