The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

01. The Petitioner-Farooq Ahmad Janda, invokes the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ for quashing an Order and Judgment dated 16^th of March, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 804 of 2020 titled ‘Farooq Ahmad Janda v. Union of India & Ors.’

02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this Petition are that the Petitioner came to be appointed as Safai Karamchari in the Department of Posts, Government of India on 20^th of October, 1999. Indisputably, in terms of the aforesaid Order, the Petitioner was asked to discharge his duties for a period of 0700 hours to 1500 hours, i.e., for a period of 08 hours in the area and places indicated in the said Order. Subsequently, vide Order dated 22^nd of August, 2000, issued by the Senior Post Master, under the orders of the Post Master General, Srinagar, all Safai Karamcharies, including the Petitioner herein, was posted in RMS office, SRO and Speed Post Office. On 30^th of September, 2005, by another Order, the Petitioner was ordered to work as Farash in addition to his duties. As is claimed by the Petitioner, he continued to work in the said capacity for almost two decades. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, by way of Original Application bearing OA No. 062/01008/2017, seeking, inter alia, the disposal of his representations made by him for pay parity with the regular employees holding the post of Safai Karamcharies as also for regularization of his services. The said OA, vide Order dated 30^th of August, 2017, was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to decide the pending representations of the Petitioner.

03. The Respondents considered the representations filed by the Petitioner and, vide Order dated 9^th of February, 2018, impugned in OA No. 804/2020, rejected the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services as well as minimum of the pay scale.

04. In OA No. 804/2020, the Petitioner prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in his favour:

i. “That impugned order dated 9.2.2018, Annexure A-1, may kindly be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary;

ii. That an appropriate writ/ order/ direction commanding upon the respondents to pay to the applicant minimum of the pay scale as admissible to the regular incumbents Safai Karamchari/ Safaiwalla/ Sweeper like other similarly placed employees and extend him all the consequential/ monetary benefits attached to the post, so as to remove the disparity amongst them. Accordingly, respondents may also be directed to pay the applicant minimum of the pay scale + dearness allowances in accordance with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from the date of initial appointment and he also been granted difference of arrears with all consequential benefits along with interest;

iii. That the respondents may be further directed to regularize the services of the applicant as per Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 2.3.2015 in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & Ors. (CWP No.9167/CAT/2007);

iv. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of relief to the applicant which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; and v. That costs of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.”

5. The aforesaid OA was contested by the Respondents by filing their Counter Affidavit. It was the stand taken by the Respondents that the Petitioner was engaged only as a Daily Wager at intervals and has not worked continuously. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, being a Daily Wager, cannot compare his services with the regular Group “D”/MTS employees, as the two are differently situate and form different class.

06. The matter was considered by the Tribunal in the light of