The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees working on casual or daily wage basis to the minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance only and the State's obligation to implement its policies for regularisation, without emphasizing the objection of non-availability of vacancies.

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

1. By this judgment we shall dispose of c. W. P. Nos.5179 of 2000, 1732 of 2000, 13650 of 1999, 3294 of 2002, 8029 of 2002, 11211 of 2002, 3527 of 2003, 13719 of 2002, 912 of 2003, 1038 of 2003, 1351 of 2003, 2073 of 2003, 15615 of 2002, 16987 of 2002, 82 of 2003, 5484 of 2003 and 6225 of 2003.

2. Known precept for achieving any constitutional goal enshrined in our constitution is that State should formulate its policy and methodology in providing employment to its people which would fall in comity to the object of defined goal. The constitution places a fundamental duty on the state to fulfil its obligations arising from fundamental rights read in conjunction with the directive principles of State policy, in favour of the people of the democratic welfare State. The State is to provide employment to its people by due adherence to the standards of equality, social dignity and respect for employer-employee relationship. The State and its instrumentalities are ideopraxists to attain the object of constitutional mandate of socio-welfare policy, including the employment. This obligation of the State attains wider dimensions when it has to deal with the persons employed by it on casual or daily wage basis for years together. Such persons serve the State on dictated terms to ensure their existence and do work continuously for number of years uninterruptedly without any benefit or assurance of continuity of their service in that department.

3. Fairness in State action must not only be done but must also appear to have been done.

"whether the employees who have served the state and people at large, for years together to the satisfaction of all concerned and possess requisite qualifications can claim relief of regularisatlon of their services and equal pay for equal work"

are the precise questions that fall for determination for the Court in this bunch of writ petitions.

4 The petitioners in all these writ petitions who are working in different departments of the state and particularly Punjab Public Works department, as Pump Operators, mali-cum-Chowkidars, Patrol Man, Bill distributors, Fitters, Ledger Clerks, complaint Clerks, Meter Readers, Bill clerk-cum Ledger Clerk and Beldars etc. for the last more than 6 to 16 years, have claimed following reliefs in the afore referred writ petitions: 1. Regularisation of their service in their respective posts.2. Grant of equal pay for equal work i. e. minimum of the regular pay scale with all allowances.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while relying upon the various judgments of the Honble Apex Court and Full bench of this Court, contended that despite having framed a policy for regularisation the state is not making any constructive efforts to implement its policies and are continuing to make further appointments on daily/casual basis. While vehemently pressing their claim for grant of the reliefs prayed for, the learned counsel also submitted that the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of devinder Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab 2001 (6) Serv LR 408 (Pandh) (C. W. P. No.14591 of 1995) was affirmed by a detailed order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4942 of 1997 State of Punjab V/s. Devinder Singh etc. on July 21, 1997 (reported in 1999 AIR scw 4859) wherein the relief of equal pay for equal work was allowed. However, the payment of the past arrears was restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the writ petition. It is contended that there is a patent discrimination in the action of the respondents in denying the same reliefs to the petitioners despite the fact that they are similarly situated like the petitioners in devinder Singhs case which even relate to the same department of the Government.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State while relying upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa V/s. Balram Sahu 2002-III-LLJ