JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. Both the appeals arise out of connected matters and hence are taken up together for hearing. The appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed by the Nagar Palika Sharmik Sangh, a Union of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) working with the Port Blair Municipal Council (PBMC). The concerned DRMs in the matter out of which MAT/10/2024 arises where initially engaged with the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) and later on taken in on the rolls of the PBMC whereas those in MAT/11/2024 have been all along working with the PBMC.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3. By an Office Memorandum dated June 7, 1988 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, in respect of engagement of casual workers in Central Government offices, certain guidelines were issued. Clause (i) of the same is important in the present context, which provided that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day.

4. Subsequently, another Office Memorandum was issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training which was contrary to the Office Memorandum dated June 7, 1988 in some respects, which prompted a challenge to the same by way of a writ petition bearing WP/268/2019, which was disposed of on December 13, 2019, thereby holding inter alia, that the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017 was read to mean that it will apply to all Daily Rated Casual Workers engaged by the Administration irrespective of the department and irrespective of the fact that the post against which they are discharging duties are sanctioned or not. Further, a Daily Rated Casual Worker engaged by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in any department will be entitled to 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day on every day of their engagement on and from June 07, 1988.

5. The Administration preferred an appeal bearing MA/9/2020 against the said order which was decided by the concerned Division Bench on December 19, 2022. The order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the benefits to be given to the concerned DRMs would accrue from the date of the Circular i.e. from September 22, 2017 and not from 1988. However, the Division Bench affirmed the observation of the learned Single Judge that no distinction should be made between the DRMs working against the sanctioned posts and those casually engaged by the State.

6. Subsequently, upon a contrary order being passed by the Administration, a contempt application was filed and the matter went up to the Supreme Court which proceedings, however, are not germane for the present consideration.

7. The present writ petitions were filed by the respondent no. 1-union on the ground that some of the members of the said union were deprived of the benefits under an Order dated August 10, 2023 issued by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, by which effect was given to the Division Bench direction to accord the benefit to all DRMs in terms of the Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017.

8. The learned Single Judge, while deciding both the writ petitions, directed the PBMC to provide the benefit of 1/30th pay of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance to the members of the petitioners in the writ petitions. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been preferred. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been preferred.

9. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Administration/appellant that the writ court erred in law in granting the benefits in a blanket fashion to all members of the writ petitioner-union whereas the Administration had,