Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P. Ray, D.M. Patnaik, JJ.
KUMARI SARASWATI PADHI AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 237 of 1993
Decided On : 18-12-1996
Jayant Das, B.S. Tripathy, S. Mallik, B.K. Sahoo, K.P. Mishra, A. Das and P.K. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; Additional Standing Counsel for O. P. No. 2, for the Respondent
Temporary employees who have completed a certain period of service are entitled to enhanced wages, even if they cannot be regularised due to the absence of sanctioned posts.
Headnote:
REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - DRDA EMPLOYEES - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - [ARTICLE 14] - Petitioners, temporarily engaged as Typist-Cum-Junior Clerk on daily wage basis, sought regularisation of services and equal pay for equal work. Held, petitioners not entitled to regularisation as appointments were not against regular vacancies. However, petitioners entitled to enhanced wages for the period of service rendered, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, temporarily engaged as Typist-Cum-Junior Clerk on daily wage basis, sought regularisation of services and equal pay for equal work. DRDA, the employer, contended that the petitioners were not appointed against any regular vacancies and their services were terminated in 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation as their appointments were not against regular vacancies. However, the court found that the petitioners had completed more than six years of service and three years of service respectively, and were entitled to enhanced wages for the period of service rendered.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation of services? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation as their appointments were not against regular vacancies. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to enhanced wages for the period of service rendered, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part. The prayer of the petitioners for regular absorption was disallowed. However, they shall be paid the arrear wage as indicated above and this should be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
JUDGMENT :
D.M. Patnaik, J. - Petitioners seek direction for regularisation of their services and for fixing their pay on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
2. Their case is, both joined as Typist-Cum-Junior Clerk on 89 days basis on daily wage of pay of Rs. 15/-. Petitioner No. 1 joined in the post on 26-7-1986 and petitioner No. 2 on 8-1-1990. Their such appointments were extended from time to time with fictional break with the sole purpose of retaining them as temporary employees. The petitioners claim that since their appointments were made against permanent vacancies, denial of absorption on regular basis is illegal.
3. Opp. party No. 2 filed a counter controverting the averments that the petitioners were appointed against any regular vacancies. However, opp. party No. 2 admitted that both of them were temporarily engaged on daily wage basis on 26-7-1986 and 8-1-1990 respectively. It is further asserted that they were engaged on the basis of 'pick and choose' method to cope with additional work under NREP and RLEGP anti-Poverty Schemes which were being worked during the 7th Five Year Plan in the rural areas. They were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor any interview was made to test their ability for selection.
4. Heard Mr. B. S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the DRDA (opp. party No. 2).
Learned counsel for the State relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla and others Vs. Tirath Raj and others, etc. etc., and submitted that the DRDA being an agency of the Government and its employees being Government servants this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Rather, the State Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum.
We are unable to accept this contention because, going through the various Clauses of the Dye-laws we find that the affairs of. the Society are governed by the Governing Body of the Society. The Society also is competent to appoint various personnel to the posts-under it, though the posts can also be filled up by deputation from Government. The main function of the Society is to implement various schemes of the Government to ameliorate the miseries of the poorer sections of the society in the rural areas from funds provided by the government. Therefore, it can be said that the Society is a Society which performs public duty and so is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, the constitution of its Governing Body with the Collector as its Chairman and others being official members amply shows the pervasive control of the Government over the Society, Since opp. party No. 2 is not a Government organisation the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act are not applicable.
Therefore, we are of the view that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the disputs raised in this case.
5. Mr. Tripathy referring to various annexures submitted that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for their regular absorption and also for equal pay for equal work. But before examining the above two contentions it would be appropriate to first find out as to whether the services of both the petitioners stood terminated on 21-1-1993 as claimed by the opposite parties.
It is the admitted case of opp. party No. 2 that the petitioners were initially appointed temporarily as Junior Clerk-cum-Typists on ad hoc basis with effect from 26-7-1986 and 8-1-1990 respectively on daily wage basis, vide Annexure-1 series. While the petitioners claim to have been still continuing in service, it is the case of opp. party No. 2 that their services were terminated on 21-1-1993 after-noon in pursuance of the Panchayat Raj Department letter No. 8762/DR dated 24-11-1992 under Annexure-A/2 (same as Annexure-2 in the writ petition).
6. Annexure-2 points out the irregularities in the ad hoc appointment by the DRD As, in the State in violation of the existing rules
