S. H. A. RAZA AND R. P. NIGAM, JJ.

( 1 ) DELAY in filing the special appeal is condoned.

( 2 ) WE have heard the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

( 3 ) ONE would have thought that after the decision of Honble Supreme Court, in Dhirendra chamoli and Anr. v. State of U. P. , (1986) 1 UPLBEC 254, the State would adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work, but it is a sad commentary on the part of the State of U. P. that it has not been following the mandate of the Constitution and the pronouncement of the apex Court. In Dhirendra Chamoli (supra), Honble Supreme Court observed :

"it must be remembered that in this country where there is so much employment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and condition of service as Class IV employees. "

( 4 ) IN the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 Labour and Industrial Cases 2168, honble Supreme Court observed in para 25 of the report:

"so far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (containing in its letter dated 6-4-1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work charged employees as well as casual labour. "

( 5 ) AS the persons employed in the Public Works Department were not paid at least the minimum scale of pay, which was given to regularly appointed Class III employees, they filed a writ petition before this Court staking the claim for regularization of their services as well as the payment of equal wages, which the regular Class IV employees in the department, were getting. One petitioner had completed more than ten years of service, while the other had completed more than nine years of continuous service. They were engaged as daily wager and have been working as such since then.

( 6 ) HONble Single Judge on 18th September, 1996, during the pendency of the writ petition, passed an order to the effect that as the petitioners were working with the respondents as daily wager for more than five years hence they will be entitled to minimum in the pay scale payable to Class IV employees.

( 7 ) THE order passed by the Honble Single Judge was not complied with and a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India was preferred. The State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document