Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
RAJENDRA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 13246 Of 1996
Decided On : 06/24/1998
REGULARISATION OF DAILY-RATED EMPLOYEES - SERVICE CONDITIONS - WAGES - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY - SOCIAL JUSTICE - RULES TO BE FRAMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT: 1. State Government to prescribe service conditions of daily-rated employees by making appropriate rules. 2. A given percentage of class III and class IV posts under the Government to be filled from amongst the daily-rated employees subject to eligibility conditions and qualifications. 3. Wages payable to daily-rated employees not to be less than the minimum of the scale of pay prescribed for the post, plus dearness allowances. 4. Until rules are framed, all vacancies in class III and class IV posts under the State to remain in abeyance.
Fact of the Case:
Petitions by daily-rated employees in the Public Works Department and Minor Irrigation Department of the Government of U.P. seeking regularisation of their services, equal pay with regular employees, and payment of arrears. Petitioners claimed unabated continuance in service and argued that their services should be regularised under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979.
Finding of the Court:
1. Wholesale and unconditional orders for regularisation of daily-rated employees cannot be issued by the Court in the absence of posts and a scheme/rules for regularisation. 2. Petitioners' appointments were not referable to any vacant posts or ad hoc appointments de hors the rules, so the question of regularisation in the popular sense does not arise. 3. Provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979, do not apply to such appointments. 4. Daily-rated employees are entitled to be paid minimum wages prescribed for such workmen, not the minimum in the pay-scale applicable to similar employees in the regular service. 5. The principle of equal pay for equal work does not have automatic application in every case of similar work. 6. Daily-rated employees engaged in government departments acquire a status and certain rights and privileges, and the Court can intervene to protect such rights and privileges. 7. Daily-rated/casual employees constitute a class of Government servants. 8. Service conditions of daily-rated employees must be modulated/refixed by making appropriate rules compatible with constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14, 16, 38, 39, 41, and 43 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether daily-rated employees can be regularised without posts and a scheme/rules for regularisation? 2. Whether the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979, apply to daily-rated employees? 3. Whether daily-rated employees are entitled to equal pay with regular employees? 4. Whether daily-rated employees engaged in government departments acquire a status and certain rights and privileges? 5. Whether daily-rated/casual employees constitute a class of Government servants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regularisation of daily-rated employees cannot be ordered without posts and a scheme/rules for regularisation, as it would violate the Constitution and relevant service rules. 2. The provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979, do not apply to daily-rated appointments that are not referable to any vacant posts or ad hoc appointments de hors the rules. 3. Daily-rated employees are entitled to be paid minimum wages prescribed for such workmen, not the minimum in the pay-scale applicable to similar employees in the regular service. 4. Daily-rated employees engaged in government departments acquire a status and certain rights and privileges, and the Court can intervene to protect such rights and privileges. 5. Daily-rated/casual employees constitute a class of Government servants.
Final Decision: 1. State Government to prescribe service conditions of daily-rated employees by making appropriate rules. 2. A given percentage of class III and class IV posts under the Government to be filled from amongst the daily-rated employees subject to eligibility conditions and qualifications. 3. Wages payable to daily-rated employees not to be less than the minimum of the scale of pay prescribed for the post, plus dearness allowances. 4. Until rules are framed, all vacancies in class III and class IV posts under the State to remain in abeyance.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS of the first two writ petitions, who were enlisted as daily-rated employees in the public Works Department and the Minor Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P. respectively, have invoked the procedure of this Court for the (win reliefs of mandamus to the respondents to regularise their services in their respective posts and to pay equal salary to them as admissible to the regular employees of the department performing similar duties.
( 2 ) THE facts wrapped in brevity, are that the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 13197 of 1996 were allegedly appointed as class IV employees on daily wages on different dates between 1985 and 1989. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 13246 of 1996 too entered the service as helpers allegedly on daily wages on different dates between 1982 and 1992. The third Writ Petition No. 14281 of 1998 instituted by Jal Vigyan Anusandhan Karamchari Union. Bahadurabad and five others, seeks the relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the members of petitioner No. 1 from the date of their initial appointments in the Irrigation department of the Government of U. P. and pay them the salary due to them with effect from the said date. It is alleged that petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 entered the service as beldar on daily wage basis in the year 1990, while petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 6 made their debut in the service in the year 1990. 1982 and 1978 respectively. It is further alleged that they are at present being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month. It is stated that each of the petitioners herein, has been discharging his duties in unabated continuity ever since his appointment. Since these petitions are knit together by common questions of law and fact, they have been taken up together for being heard and disposed of by a common order with the consent of the counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners emphatically canvassed that the petitioners were albeit, appointed on dally wages irrespective of the fact whether there was any vacancy, but their unabated continuance should be reckoned with to merit consideration that there is regular need for their services and that they are being made to work on daily wage basis with the specific purpose to a design of balking them of the benefits of permanency in service. The learned counsel placed credence on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara singh, JT 1992 (5) SC 179 : Khagesh Kumar and others v. I. G. Registration and others, JT 1995 (7) SC 545 and State of U. P. and others v. Putti Lal. (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313. Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first two petitions submitted that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra), the petitioners are entitled to he considered for regularisation under the provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc appointments (Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended upto date. Sri P. C. Jhingan, appearing for the petitioners in the third petition, pressed for regularisation and equal pay for equal work especially on the dint of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dharvad District P. W. D. Literate Daily Employees Association and others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1990 (3) UPLBEC 2151, and the decision of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Putti Lal (supra ). Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, quipped that the Rules of 1979 are not intended for application to the facts of the present case and in the absence of any scheme for regularisation and requisite number of posts, the petitioners were not entitled to claim regularisation nor were they entitled to claim parity in the matter of pay with their regularly recruited counter-parts in the department. In re Regularisation
( 4 ) QUESTION of regularisation of daily-rated employees has been weighed up by the Apex Court as well
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
