Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
N. Vijayakumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P. No. 34877 of 2023
Decided On : 19-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : L. Chandrakumar
For the Respondent: M. Rajendiran

Equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that similarly situated employees must receive the same remuneration, and arbitrary denial violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 39(d) - Equal pay for equal work - Petitioners, daily rated casual labourers, challenged the rejection of their claim for minimum pay of Rs.18,500/- as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019 - Court found that petitioners were similarly situated to others granted the pay scale and entitled to the same. (Paras 1, 17, 18, 20)

(B) Natural Justice - Deprivation of equal pay violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 - Court emphasized that all similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment. (Paras 18, 19)

(C) Quashing of Order - The impugned order rejecting the petitioners' claims was quashed, directing the respondents to grant the minimum scale of pay. (Paras 20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were engaged as daily rated casual labourers since various dates and sought equal pay as per government orders. They claimed to have been omitted from the list of eligible employees for the minimum pay.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the minimum time scale of pay as they were similarly situated to the 3407 daily rated employees who received the pay.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to the minimum pay and if the rejection of their claims was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to equal pay under Article 39(d) and that the rejection of their claims was arbitrary and against natural justice.

Result: Writ petition stands allowed with directions to grant minimum pay.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Order No. S.4(1)/30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023 and further directing the respondents to grant a minimum time scale of pay of Rs.18,500/- per mensum applying equal pay for equal work underArticle 39(d) of the Constitution of India and as had been granted and extended in favour of similarly placed persons as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were all appointed as Daily Rated Casual Labourers since 01.06.1998, 01.01.1990 and 01.06.2004 respectively, and the service particulars of the respective petitioners are annexed to the typed set of papers. They are all rendering services under Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) and have continued as such as on date.

3. The Government by a Policy Decision came up with a proposal that in view of their continuous, uninterrupted services which is required in the Irrigation Management under the Water Resources Organization (WRO), issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019, arriving at a total of about 3407 such daily rated casual labourers who are working on a temporary basis to be granted and extended with basic pay at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post of sweeper/scavenger with Dearness Allowance thereupon applicable from time to time directed that instead of bringing them under regular time scale of pay or for permanent absorption.

4. While being so, a Screening Committee was also constituted for the purpose of verification of these types of NMRs. The Screening Committee which was directed to identify the eligible casual labourers arrived at 3407 NMRs.

5. In an earlier round of litigation, as many as 20 persons approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD)No.8092 of 2020 to permit the petitioners to continue as NMRs' till their permanent absorption among other prayers. This Court after making certain observations dispose of the writ petition by giving few directions:

56. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the factual matrix of this case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders in this writ petition:

(1) That out of the 20 petitioners, except Petitioner Nos.2, 15 and 19, others are not entitled to seek for any relief, as they have claimed in this writ petition. Therefore, insofar as the other 17 petitioners, the prayer sought for by the petitioners is rejected.

(2) In respect of the petitioner Nos.2, 15 and 19, based on the certificate issued by the very PWD Executive Engineers concerned certifying that, they have been engaged directly as NMR employees for more than five years and ten years respectively, their candidature can be considered by the respondents PWD for the continuous engagement.

(3) In future, as has been declared in the G.O.137 Public Works Department dated 13.09.2019, no NMR employees shall be engaged in the Public Works Department, except at the campus, sites indicated in Item No. (i) of Paragraph 6 of G.O.137. However, for any emergency or contingency, if the Government decides to engage any new NMR employees only for the specific purpose or for a limited period, even such engagement shall be strictly made only from among the candidates, whose names are sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange and at no circumstances, direct engagement shall be made by way of pick and choose method by the PWD officials.

(4) The Government shall come forward to issue necessary Government orders prescribing the age, educational qualifications and physical fitness for the purpose of engagement and method of engagement of NMR employees in future.

(5) In this context, the G.O., may indicate or prescribe the educational qualifications of only or the maximum of up to Higher Secondary, i.e. +2 and as far as possible, such engagement shall only be made from among the candidates, who have the educational qualification only upto +2 and the highly qual