Back
1998 Supreme(All) 205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
PRAYAG NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 15949 Of 1996
Decided On : 02/24/1998
AMIT SAXENA, P.N.Saxena
The principle of equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal that must be enforced in a Court of law. Discrimination in pay and benefits based on the method of recruitment or the status of an employee as temporary or permanent is unconstitutional.
Headnote:
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - MUSTER ROLL EMPLOYEES - REGULAR EMPLOYEES - DISPARITY IN EMOLUMENTS - BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT: The petitioners, employed as class IV employees in the Public Works Department, challenged the disparity in emoluments and benefits between them and their regular counterparts. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work and other benefits admissible to regular employees, as there was no distinction in the work and circumstances in which the two types of employees were placed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed as class IV employees in the Public Works Department, filed writ petitions challenging the disparity in emoluments and benefits between them and their regular counterparts. They alleged that they were being paid lower wages, denied medical leave, earned leave, leave encashment, bonus, provident fund, and Employees State Insurance Scheme benefits, which were admissible to regular employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were performing the same duties and shouldering the same responsibilities as their regular counterparts in the department. There was no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Muster Roll employees and the employees working on a regular basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work and other benefits admissible to regular employees? 2. Whether there was any distinction in the work and circumstances in which the two types of employees were placed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, which has been held enforceable in a Court of law. The court also referred to various Supreme Court judgments that have upheld the right to equal pay for equal work and condemned discrimination based on the method of recruitment or the status of an employee as temporary or permanent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the petitioners be paid the same salary and allowances as their regular counterparts, with all consequential benefits. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work and other benefits admissible to regular employees, as there was no distinction in the work and circumstances in which the two types of employees were placed.
( 1 ) ALL the petitioners in these five writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are employed as class IV employee in the Public Works Department in district Fatehpur. They are working on the posts of Beldar/meths or Chaukldar. All of them were Initially engaged on dally wage basis but subsequently, they were brought on temporary Muster Roll and in some cases as would be Indicated below, they were brought on permanent Muster Roll. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is a striking disparity in the emoluments which are payable to the petitioners as well as their counterparts who are in regular employment and that they are also being denied the benefits of medical leave, earned leave, leave encashment or bonus, provident fund and the Employees State Insurance Scheme as are admissible to the regular employees. In all the five writ petitions. It is prayed that respondents be directed to pay equal emoluments for equal work. i. e. , equivalent to the employees who are working on regular basis as well as other benefits which are admissible to the regular employees.
( 2 ) SINCE the setting in all the writ petitions is quite familiar as also the submissions and the reliefs claimed are Identical, it is proposed to decide all the five writ petitions by this common judgment.
( 3 ) WITH a view to grasp the controversy in hand, it would be proper to give in brief the facts of each one of the petitions.
( 4 ) THE Writ Petition No. 15744 of 1996 has been filed by Prayag Naraln and 12 others with the allegations that they were Initially appointed as Beldar on dally wage basis and were paid wages on monthly basis. They were brought on temporary Muster Roll and were promoted as Meths. Their names were placed in permanent Muster Roll in the year 1989. They are being paid the salary in the regular scale of Meths but the respondents have put celling at Rs. 1,700 with the result the petitioners are being paid a sum of Rs. 1,825 per month while their counterparts who are employees in the department on regular basis are getting Rs. 2,224. Obviously, the prayer of the petitioners is that they may be paid the same amount of salary which is being paid to the regular Meths as there is no distinction in the work and the circumstances in which two types of the Meths are placed.
( 5 ) ON almost Identical allegations made in Writ Petition No. 15744 of 1996. Suresh and 3 others have filed Writ Petition No. 15949 of 1996. In the said petition, four petitioners are on temporary muster Roll and are being paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 36 per day. They were engaged sometimes during the period 1983-88.
( 6 ) THE Writ Petition No. 15745 of 1996 has been Instituted by Radhey Shyam and 12 others alleging that they were engaged as Beldars on dally wage basis. They have been brought on temporary Muster Roll during the period 1972-86. According to them they are being paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 35 per day while the regular Beldars and the Beldars who are on permanent Muster Roll are drawing their salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940. They claim the same salary as is payable to a regular Beldar or the Beldars who are on permanent Muster Roll. To the same effect is the relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 15813 of 1996 which has been instituted by Prtihvi Pal and 32 others, who were brought on permanent Muster Roll in the year 1989. They being the Beldars on permanent Muster Roll are being paid a sum of Rs. 1,825 while the regular Beldars are drawing a consolidated amount of Rs. 2,164 as salary.
( 7 ) THE Writ Petition No. 15746 of 1996 filed by Ram Prasad and 2 others concerns the engagement of the Chaukldars on dally wage basis. The three petitioners were brought on permanent Muster Roll during the period 1988-89. A Chaukldar on permanent Muster Roll is getting Rs. 1,825 as salary while regular Chaukldar 19 getting Rs. 2,164 per month as salary. It is alleged that there is no Justification for the aforesaid dispar
