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 rulings.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

(S. K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 33 (AP) of 2021.

2. The facts, as projected in the writ petition instituted by the present respondents as writ petitioners are that they were Casual employees of the Public Health Engineering and Water Supply Department in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. They were appointed during the period from 1996 to 2007 and were continuing in their services. Their prayer for regularisation of service was not acceded to. It was contended that though they were categorised as Contingent Staff, they were working as regular LDCs. It was also stated that some of the petitioners were working like regular LDC/typists but were not being paid equal wages as compared to ad hoc/regular LDCs. The petitioners had also challenged the appointments of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the writ petition, whom the petitioners allege to be junior to them and were, however, regularised in their services.

3. On the said backdrop, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition was contested by the State as well as by the private respondents and the claims were refuted.

4. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing the parties, had framed three Issues for consideration, which read as follows:

“12. In view of the contention made by the petitioners in the petition and by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition and also in view of the submissions so advanced at the Bar, the issues, that have arisen for consideration before this Court is formulated as under:-

(i) Whether the 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?

(ii) Whether the private respondent Nos.5 to 8 were appointed as Work Charge employees, without following the due procedure of law and on such count, their appointments are liable to be set aside and quashed?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to minimum scale of pay and allowances like regular LDC/LDC cum Typists, since they have been discharging the same duty like the regular LDC/LDC cum Typists, on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work ?....”

5. So far as the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the learned Single Judge negated the claims and rejected the same. However, so far as the Issue No. 3 is concerned, the learned Single Judge had answered the same in favour of the petitioners by directing that the petitioners would be entitled to the minimum scale of pay. For ready reference, the observations and directions, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal are extracted hereinbelow:

“30. As discussed herein above, the aforesaid contention of the petitioners have not been seriously disputed by the State respondents. Having considered above and also having considered the submissions of learned Advocates of both side, and also drawing premises from the proposition of law, so laid down in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) and Umadevi (3), (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to at least minimum scale of pay in their present position, based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Accordingly, it is provided that the State respondents shall provide minimum pay scale to the petitioners from the date of filing the present writ petition i.e. with effect from 03.02.2021….”

6. It is