SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(All) 205

O.P.GARG
PRAYAG NARAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMIT SAXENA, P.N.Saxena

O. P. GARG, J.

( 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 t



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top