HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.C.Agarwal
CHATURTH SHRENI KARMCHARI SANGH SICHAI VIBHAG U P
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 13 August 1998
C. M. W. R No. 9072 of 1989
REGULARISATION OF DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES - IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - U. P. SERVICE RULES - U. P. COLLECTION AMIN SERVICE RULES, 1974 - U. P. COLLECTION PEONS SERVICE RULES, 1996 - DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES UNION V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION - ZAKIRHUSSAIN V. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT - STATE OF HARYANA V. JASMER SINGH - SUMMARY: The court dismissed a petition seeking regularization of daily wage employees in the Irrigation Department, holding that there was no right to regularization merely because of completing 240 days of service. The court noted that the government was considering framing a scheme for regularization and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities once the scheme was finalized.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a union of Class IV employees of the Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P., sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their service, pay equal wages, and declare them permanent employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not been in continuous employment and that there was no material to establish that they were entitled to regularization. The court also noted that the government was considering framing a scheme for regularization and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities once the scheme was finalized.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization of their service merely because they had completed 240 days of service. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no right to regularization merely because of completing 240 days of service, relying on the judgment in Zakirhus-sain v. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department. 2. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to equal pay for equal work, relying on the judgment in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Union of Class IV employees of the Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P. and several of the members have sought a writ of man damus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners and to pay equal wages and other benefits to the petitioners as are admissible to the permanent Class IV employees of the Ir rigation Department. A further writ of mandamus is sought to declare the petitioners as permanent employees of the Department for having worked for more than 2 to 7 years on their respective posts.
2. Counter and rejoinder-Affidavits have been exchanged.
3. I have heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. The case pf the petitioners is that its members who have been mentioned in the title of the writ petition numbering 20, have been working on the posts of Chaukidar, Dhawak (Runner), Cook-cum- Bearer, Beldar, Seenchpal, Driver, Supervisor, Helper, Typist etc. in the Ir rigation Divisions I, II, III, IV and V from various dates mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Udaibir Singh, Prem Chand and Ramjit Yadav mentioned at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were stated to be working from 10-6-1982, 5-7- 1982 and 15-3-1982, respectively, till the filing of the writ petition. Pancham Das at serial No. 8, Kallu at serial No. 12 and Ayodhya Prasad at serial No. 18 were stated to be working continuously from 1-8-1980, 1-8- 1981 and 1-7-1979. The rest are also stated to have been working from various dates men tioned against their names. They were all muster roll employees on daily wage basis and had not been granted leave even on National Holidays or festivals. It was claimed that each of them has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was claimed that the said Irrigation Divisions are permanent Irrigation Division of the Irrigation Department, under the State of U. P. and many other persons have been appointed on per manent basis in the Department for doing similar work. The performance of the petitioners was claimed to have been satis factory and they were given assurance for regularisation and in some cases some of the petitioners were recommended for regularising their services. The petitioners state the rates of wages being paid to the various categories of employees, referred to above, on day-to- day basis which ranges from Rs. 13. 50 p. per day for a chaukidar to Rs. 32. 50 for Driver and Supervisor. The regular employees of the Department are paid salaries on monthly basis and their daily salary comes to about Rs. 45/- per day. The petitioners assert a right of equal pay for equal work. It was claimed that a representation has been made on 27-9-1988 on behalf of the Union claiming that persons
who have been working for more than three years should be made per manent. It was claimed that the kind of work the petitioners are doing is of a per manent nature and hence the petitioners should have been regularised and con firmed in their posts. It is claimed that the petitioners are being subjected to dis crimination and unfair labour practice.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and sworn by Sri Kailash Nath, an Executive Engineer, it has been denied that the petitioners are in continuous employment of the various of fices. It is averred on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were engaged as per requirement for different spells of times as casual labourers in muster roll. A statement showing the period of working of the petitioners is annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure CA-1 which shows that most of the petitioners were not in current employments of the Government when this writ petition was filed. According to the chart contained in Annexure CA-1, the above named Udaibir Singh worked during August, 1982 to March 1983 for different spells of time. In 1983-8
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.