SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK, J.
Prayag Mahto and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (S) No.890 of 2019
Decided On : 10-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurav Arun, Adv., Ms. Rinki Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA-III.

Daily wagers cannot claim parity with work-charged employees due to differing service conditions, as established under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Writ petition for quashing of order rejecting claim for minimum pay-scale for daily wagers - Petitioners appointed as daily wagers and later regularized, claimed parity with work-charged employees of Deoghar District - Court found no discrimination as service conditions differ - Impugned order upheld. (Paras 1, 6, 12)

(B) Employment Law - Classification of employees - Daily wagers cannot claim same benefits as work-charged employees who are engaged against posts in a pay-scale - Legal distinction upheld based on service conditions. (Paras 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, daily wagers in the Water Resources Department, sought the same benefits as regularized work-charged employees in Deoghar District, alleging discrimination. Previous orders directed fresh representation, but their claims were rejected on grounds of differing service conditions.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' claims, emphasizing the differences in service conditions between daily wagers and work-charged employees.

Issues: Whether daily wagers are entitled to the same benefits as work-charged employees based on service conditions and parity claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that daily wagers do not hold substantive posts and therefore cannot claim parity with work-charged employees, affirming the distinction in service conditions.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) :

The Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 27-09-2018, by which claim of petitioners for giving similar benefits as extended to the employees working at Deoghar District has been rejected. The petitioners have further prayed for payment of minimum scale for the period, they had worked as a daily wager from the date of their appointment as daily wager till the date of regularization and pay arrear thereof, as it has been paid to the employees of Deoghar District.

2. The facts of the case is that the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 5 were appointed on 1-10-1978 and 1-04-1984 respectively as Khalasi in the Irrigation Department now known as Water Resources Department and the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 were appointed on 1-04-1978, 1-08-1980, and 1-04-1979 respectively to the post of khalasi in the Water Resource Division as daily-wagers. Thereafter, Petitioner no. 1 was regularized to the post of choukidar w.e.f. 2004, whereas Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were regularized to the post of Anusewak (Peon) w.e.f. 2006 and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were regularised to the post of Anusewak (peon) w.e.f. 2004 and getting all the benefits of a regular employee from the date of their regularization. It is specific case of the Petitioners that they were working on daily wage basis prior to 1-08-1985 and thereafter their services were regularized in view of the order passed by the Respondents dated 29-04-2004, but they were not granted the minimum pay-scale for the period, they had worked as daily wagers i.e. from the date of their initial appointment as daily wager till the date of regularization. It is further the case of the petitioners that one similarly situated person, Upendra Chourasia preferred a writ application for similar benefits for the period for which he had worked on daily wage basis and the said benefits have been extended in his favour vide letter dated 12-01-2006 and 28-08-2006 after order of this Hon’ble Court.

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that earlier also the Petitioners have moved before this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 720/2009 seeking same and similar benefits as has been given to other similarly situated persons who were working at Deoghar district and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31-08-2017 with a direction that petitioners may file fresh representation before respondents who in turn shall consider their cases and pass a fresh order. In compliance of the same, the respondents vide impugned order dated 27-09-2018, rejected the claim of Petitioners on the ground that petitioners are not at par with the employee of Deoghar District and the petitioners were also not party in the writ petition, filed by one Upendra Chourasia.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this court, challenging the order dated 27.09.2018

4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on the ground that the persons working on daily wage basis or work charged establishment constitute same class and as such, no discrimination can be made amongst the work-charged employee or daily wage employee. The employees working in the Deoghar District before induction in work-charged establishment were also daily-wagers and they have been given minimum pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment to till regularization of their services and as such, petitioners are also entitled for the said benefits and impugned order being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, is not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that from the letter dated 29-09-2006, it appears that the services of employees of Deoghar district, have been regularized from the initial date of appointment and given pay scale with effect from the initial date of appointment with pay revision and consequent thereto allotment has also been made available for payment of salary etc. for the employees of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top