Part-time employees are expected to render part-time service in Government offices. But many of them have been on the corridors of this Court as full time litigants for quite sometime. Despite several rounds of litigation they are denied at least part-time peace in service.

2. Equal pay for equal work is one of the social and economic goals enshrined in the Constitution of India Article 39 mandates that the State should avoid discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. It is a constitutional obligation of the State. As the Supreme Court observed the constitutional philosophy must be allowed to become a part of every man in this country: than only would the Constitution reach everyone and he or she would be nearer the goals set by it. (Dharward P.W.D. Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396). In the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Daily Rates Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 122, the apex court considered the plight of the employees in the lowest rungs of the service. It was held therein as follows:

“The State cannot deny at lest the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. But he does so because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer”.

There are several decisions of the Supreme Court and this court on this principle. It is not necessary to refer to them in extenso since it is the very same principle which is emphasized in the decisions. The question raised in these writ petitions can be analysed only in the light of the guidance on the constitutional philosophy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court.

3. All these cases pertain to wages payable to Part-time Sweepers. The earliest relevant Government Order governing their service is traceable to G.O.(P)831/80 (253)Fin. Dated 3-11-1980. The order reads as follows:-

“Government are pleased to sanction the following further benefits to part-time employees:-

1. The existing rates of remuneration of part-time contingent employees shall be revised as shown below with effect from 1-10-1980.

Hereafter all part-time contingent employees shall be accommodated against sanctioned posts in one of the categories detailed below. In all cases where fixed contingent charges are being paid without posts, the Heads of Departments shall take immediate steps to obtain Govt. Sanction creating part-time contingent posts in one of the categories mentioned, based on the area to be swept/cleaned in each case, and the existing incumbent accommodated against each post.”

Thus it can be seen that the classification for the purposes of pay is based only on sweeping area-below 200 Sq.Metres and above 200 Sq.Metres. Further there was a direction that all part-time contingent employees should be accommodated against the sanctioned posts. Still further, probably the most crucial direction in the order is on creation of posts. The Government also directed to accommodate the existing incumbents against such posts.

4. The petitioners who are Part-time Sweepers in these cases, have been appointed by the Controlling Officers and they were generally being paid at the rates noted in the Government order referred to above which have been revised from time to time. It is significant to note that their case has been considered in all pay revision orders. In the pay revision order now in force G.O.(P)No.3000/98/Fin. Dated 25-11-1998 which come in to effect from 1.3.1997. It has been ordered thus in the matter of sweeping area and payment thereon:-

a. i) For those