( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Peon on daily wages under respondent no. 2. He was appointed in that capacity on 8. 3. 1999. From 1993 onwards till 1995-96 he worked for more than 240 days during the course of each year. He sought grant of temporary status in pursuance of Office memorandum dated 10. 9. 1993 issued by Ministry of Personnel, p. G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, government of India, regularisation and payment of wages on par with his counter-parts employed on regular basis. He was, however, denied the same. He, therefore, approached central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi with O. A. No. 860/97 praying for grant of temporary status regularisation and parity of wages with peons employed on regular basis.

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 raised the plea that since the petitioner, who was employed as unskilled worker from 11. 3. 1993 on daily wages and was being paid from the administrative contingencies, had not rendered one year s continuous service by 10. 9. 1993 when the Office Memorandum dated 10. 9-1993 came into force, he was not entitled to the benefit of temporary status. The scheme, it was pleaded, was meant for casual workers and muster roll workers only and not for daily wagers and, therefore, temporary status could not have been granted to the petitioner. It was maintained that the wages of the petitioner was being rightly paid at the approved rate of Rs-77. 40 per day inclusive of payment for weekly days of rest as he was not entitled to payment of wages equal to those employed on regular basis.

( 3 ) THE reliefs sought by the petitioner were declined by the Tribunal and his application was dismissed for the reasons as stated hereunder;

IT is clear from the pleadings that the applicant being neither a casual worker nor a muster roll worker, is not entitled for being granted temporary status or for being paid salary at par with his, regular counterparts. Since the applicant is only a daily wage worker he has been rightly paid the approved rates of the Government of N. C. T. Delhi. The Hon ble supreme Court has also held in State of Haryana and others Vs. Jasmer Singh and others. Judgements Today 1996 (10) SC 876 that daily rated workers are not. required to possess qualifications prescribed for regular workers nor have they to fulfil age requirement their selection is not as rigorous as that of regular employees. They are not liable for transfer or subject to disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. Therefore daily wage employees cannot be treated at par with regular employees holding regular post. They cannot claim regular pay. This being the position, the applicant s request for regular pay on par with that of regular employees and for temporary status or for regularisation cannot be granted. The application therefore is dismissed. Me do not order any costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Mrs. Shanta Shastry) (V. Rajagopala Reddy) member (A) Vice Chairman (3)

( 4 ) WE have heard arguments on both the sides. Me have also perused the record.

( 5 ) ON 25/05/2000 while issuing notice to respondents 1 and 2 to show cause, following order was passed:

" Notice to respondents 1 and 2 to show cause why rule nisi be not issued confined to the extent as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the status of a temporary employee as the learne counsel does not press parity of pay between the petitioner and other regular employees holding regular posts, returnable on 8/11/2000. Sd/- c. M. Nayar, J. Sd/- 25/05/2000 R. S. Sodhi, J. "

( 6 ) THE order dated 25/05/2000 makes it evident that the hearing is to be confined to the sole issue if the petitioner is entitled to temporary status. In the circumstances, the petitioner s case relating to regularisation and parity of wages need not be examined. As a matter of fact, grant of temporary status automatically entails the incidence of minimum pay in the pay scale of regular workers including annual increments plus Dearness Allowance a