Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 3178
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.Jeyapaul, J.
Trishala Devi
Versus
State Of Haryana
C.W.P. No. 8661 of 1990,
Decided On : DECEMBER 1, 2010
The judgment emphasizes the need for daily wage workers to demonstrate the discharge of similar duties to claim equal pay as regular employees.
Headnote:
Daily Wage Clerk - Termination of Services - [State of Punjab vs. Parvesh Kumar and another, 1994(4) SLR 92; Raghbir Singh vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) SLR 297; Union Territory, Chandigarh and others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others, 2001(2) RSJ 722] - The court considered the termination of services of a daily wage clerk and the entitlement to equal pay as that of a regular clerk. The court emphasized the nature of duties and responsibilities, the distinction between daily wage and regular employment, and the requirement for the petitioner to demonstrate the discharge of similar duties to claim equal pay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage clerk and alleged termination without proper orders. The petitioner sought equal pay as regular clerks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's duties were different from those of a regular clerk, and there was no evidence of discrimination or discharge of similar duties to claim equal pay.
Issues: 1) Legality of the termination of services. 2) Entitlement to equal pay as a regular clerk.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between the duties of a daily wage clerk and a regular clerk, the requirement for evidence of similar duties to claim equal pay, and the lack of discrimination in the termination of services.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
M.Jeyapaul, J.
1. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that she was appointed as clerk on daily wage basis on 18.10.1989 and continued to serve as clerk up to 22.4.1990. Neither appointment nor termination order was issued to the petitioner. Two other contentions were also made by the petitioner that the juniors in rank were permitted to continue in service and even fresh appointments were also made after the termination of services of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not paid equal pay as that of the regular clerk(s). The petitioner having contended that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India prays to quash the action of the respondents in terminating her services. She has also prayed for reinstatement with all service benefits and equal pay package as that of regular clerks in Haryana State.
2. In the reply filed by the State it has been contended that the petitioner was, of course, engaged on daily wage basis only for carrying out the work of checking of prize winning tickets. Her salary was paid from contingent fund as per the rates fixed by the local administration. It is further contended that the similarly placed persons referred to in the writ petition were disengaged and were not in employment with the respondent. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not discharging the duties and responsibilities of a regular employee of the respondent. The petitioner who was engaged for the sole purpose of checking of prize winning tickets and was not at all engaged to discharge the job of a regular clerk, cannot claim equation of salary with that of a regular clerk. Therefore, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. There arises the following two issues for determination:
i) Whether the termination of services of the petitioner is legally sustainable?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to draw equal pay as that of a regular clerk?
4. The learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the juniors in rank were permitted to continue in service and the respondents had even gone in for fresh appointment after the termination of services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner who had discharged the job of a clerk, is entitled to equal pay with that of a regular clerk in the service of the respondents and not fixed pay as is paid to the petitioner.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State would submit that the nature of duty assigned to the petitioner was totally different from that of the duty discharged by the regular clerk attached to the respondents. It is his further submission that the petitioner who was employed as a contingent daily wage staff, cannot claim permanency. He would also submit that as the duties and responsibilities of the regular clerk is totally different from that of the duty discharged by the petitioner herein, the petitioner cannot legally claim equal pay with that of regular clerk.
6. It is an admitted position that there was no order of appointment issued to the petitioner nor was any order of termination served on the petitioner. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis for a short duration. It is to be noted that the petitioner was asked to discharge the duty of checking of prize winning tickets. Such a job cannot be equated to the service of a regular clerk in the department of the respondents. Further, it has been demonstrated by the respondents that the petitioner was paid wages from the contingent fund as per the rates fixed by the local administration. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the employees who were junior in position and the employees who were appointed later in time after the termi
