Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) ITANAGAR PERMANENT BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Smt. Yabi Mindo, D/o Late Taba Mindo – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondents
WP(C) No. 33(AP) of 2021
Decided on : 10-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Service matter - Working as casual employees - Regularization of services - Whether petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services in the post of LDC/LDC cum Typists, since they have completed more than 20 years in the Public Health Engineering and Water Supply Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh - Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submits that since petitioners have been discharging the same function like regular LDC, they are entitled to equal pay like regular LDCs based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Para 22
Finding of Court : Court find that it is categorical stand of petitioners that since day of their appointment, they have been discharging function like a regular LDC - Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners also submits that since petitioners have been discharging same function like regular LDC, they are entitled to equal pay like regular LDCs based on principle of equal pay for equal work - It is apparent that some of petitioners have been rendering their services in present posts for more than 20 years and even last appointee, i.e. petitioner No.8 also rendered services for more than 15 years - As submitted at Bar, 12 years service is required for regularization - Court is of considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to at least minimum scale of pay in their present position, based on principle of equal pay for equal work‘ - It is provided that State respondents shall provide minimum pay scale to the petitioners from date of filing present writ petition i.e. with effect from.
Result : Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tappin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 - 4, Mr. K. Bogo, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 - 7 and Mr. D. Ado, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by seven petitioners, praying for following relief(s):-
(ii) To regularize the service of the petitioners in the post of LDC/LDC Typist.
(iii) To give pay and allowances equal to a regular Lower Division Clerk (LDC)/LDC- Typist from the day when they were engaged as contingency typist, as they have been discharging the duty of regular LDC and also to quash the appointment of private respondent Nos.5 – 8, being the same made without following proper procedure.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:-
The petitioners have filed several representations for regularization of their services to the concerned authorities, but the same failed to yield any result. It is their pleaded case that though they have been categorized and appointed as contingency staff, but, they have been discharging their duties as regular Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The respondent authorities, without considering the length of services of the petitioners for regularization, have been appointing, regularizing and promoting their juniors/private respondents, without following the due process of appointment, regularization and promotion. And though the petitioners have been working like regular LDC/LDC - Typist, yet they have not been provided with the salary equal to regular LDC/LDC - Typist and since the petitioners have been discharging the same functions, like the regular LDC/LDC - Typist as well as Computer Operator, they are entitled to equal pay for equal work. But, they are being deprived of the same and they are being paid lesser amount of pay, than the work performed by them.
It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 5 - 8 are junior to the petitioners and they have been given higher pay scale and allowance by following the pick and choose policy. The petitioners have filed several representations for cancellation of the appointment of the said private respondents and also prayed for regularization of their service, but no response has been received till date. The action of the respondent authorities, thus violated the right guaranteed to them by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, they have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.”
4. The respondent Nos.3 & 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the assertions made by the petitioners in their writ petition. It is stated that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the CPWD Manual is being followed by the Engineering Department across the State and the Department Promotion Committee (DPC), deals with the issues/matters regarding promotion of regular LDC/LDC Typist as well as Computer Operator and it is the responsibility of the Chief Engineer (Coordination) for the entire PHE & WSD and in the case of service of Work Charge staff, the respective Superintending Engineer of the Circle are assigned with the responsibility. It is stated that after the decision of th
Point of Law : Principle of “equal pay for equal work” has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like)
In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it is necessary to keep in mind, that duties of two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and....
The court affirmed that casual workers are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale for their roles based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', as established in relevant Supreme Court ruli....
The court upheld that fixed pay contingency employees do not qualify for regularization under work-charged employee policies, emphasizing the need for adherence to established criteria.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires the employee to prove that their duties are similar in nature and responsibility to those of regular employees; failure to do so negates the claim....
The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable if the work component is the same, and workers doing the same work cannot be paid less than others similarly situated.
Temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to minimum wages as per the equal pay principle, asserting their right to equitable treatment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
