Equal pay and conditions of service should be provided to casual laborers as to regular employees, and non-sanctioned positions should be regularized to avoid continued casual employment in long-standing organizations.

Sushil Kumar Jha & Abhiram Singh, JJ.

We think this writ application must be disposed of in the very terms as such cases were disposed of in a series of decisions by the Supreme Court; to wit-Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others (AIR 1982 Supreme Court, 879); Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U.P., 1986 (52) Indian Factories and Labour Reports 147; under Pal Yadav and others etc. v. Union of India and others etc. [1985 PLJR 36 (SC)] and Surinder Singh & another v. The Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. and others (Writ petition (Civil) Nos. 59-60 & 563-70/83 decided on 17th January, 1986) [reported in 1986 PLJR 15(SC)]. Following the same principle and the same operative portion of the ORDER :s mentioned in the Supreme Court cases, we allow this writ application and direct the respondents including the State Of Bihar (respondent no. 5) to pay to the petitioners the same salary and allowance excepting earned and casual leaves as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed. It is worthwhile to take special note of the JUDGMENT : in D. Chamoli's case (supra) wherein the Supreme Court made directions to this effect :

"We therefore allow the writ petitions and make the rule absolute and direct the Central Government to accord to these persons who are employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are concededly performing the same duties as Class' IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as are being received by class IV employees, except regularisation which cannot be done since there are no sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so that these persons can be regularised. It is not at all desirable that any management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years. The salary and allowances of Class IV employees shall be given to these persons employed in Nehru Yuvak Kendras with effect from the date when they were respectively employed."

We have highlighted this aspect of the matter merely in ORDER :to show that on the admitted position of the parties, some of the petitioners have been working as Casual Labourers right from April, 1976, that is, more than a decade from today; some from 1977 some from 1978; some from 1979; some from 1980 and so on and so forth. But in the instant case we are concerned with only 37 regular Mazdoors some of whom are continuing since 1976 without any break and we are not concerned in the instant writ application, as is apparent from paragraph 5 of the writ petition, with the other Mazdoors who are working on leave vacancy. But, we do hope and trust that even out of the petitioners, those who are working against non-sanctioned posts, their post will be sanctioned by the State Government so that they can be regularised. Because on the admitted position, payments to such employees as are employed against non-sanctioned posts have to be made at the present moment from the contingency fund made available to the High Court by the State Government and in the fitness of things, as was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Chamoli (supra) it is not at all desirable that any management should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for well over a decade. It is worth-while to mention that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it has beep categorically stated that :

"the High Court has approached the State Govt. to create some posts and as and when the posts are sanctioned, these casual workers shall be adjusted against the sanctioned posts in ORDER :of preference first-come first-serve basis."

It is, therefore, that we have directed the State of Bihar (respondent no. 5) to focus their attention to the paragraph extracted from the Supreme Co