Part-time workers engaged on fixed honorarium cannot claim regularisation of their services or parity of pay scale with regular employees.

RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J.

The appellants have filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18-07-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 4620 (S/s) of 2005.

2. The petitioners had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs :

" (i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opp. parties to regu larise the services of the petition ers on their posts and pay them the minimum of the pay scale as the other similarly situated persons are being paid from the date of their regularisation.

(ii) issue any other writ order or direc tion as this Honble Court may deem just and proper.

(iii) allow the writ petition with cost. "

3. The case of the writ petitioners was that they were engaged in Ramgar Pey Jal Yojana as Beldar / Chowkidar during the period between 1985 to 1990. Later on, the petitioners services were trans ferred to Kumaon Jal Sansthan. The pe titioners grievance was that in spite of their having served for a period of more than 10 years, neither their services were regularised nor they were being paid regu lar pay scale.

4. The appellants (respondents in the writ petition) filed their counter affidavit denying the writ petitioners claim for regu larisation. Paras 3 to 7 of the counter af fidavit read as follows :

"3. That the contents of para no. 2 of the writ petition are not correct and as such are denied. The petitioners were not engaged as Daily Wagers in the de partment on the contrary they were engaged as part time workers on a fixed honorarium and as such neither they are entitled for minimum of pay scale nor they can claim for regularisation.

4. That in respect to the contents of para no. 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioners are engaged as part time workers in the department and they were being paid honorarium for the work performed by them. The duty assigned to the petitioners is to open the valve of water distribution pipe line in the morning and to close the same in the evening which is a work of not more an hour per day for which they were being paid honorarium.

5. That in respect to the contents of para no. 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is true that Ramgar Pay Jal Yojna Project was transferred by the Jal Nigam to the Kumaon Jal Sansthan, however, it is denied that the petitioners were working under the said Yojna as the deponent has no knowl edge of the same. So far the Kumaon Jal Sansthan is concerned, the petition ers were engaged as part time workers on a fixed honorarium basis.

6. That in respect to the contents of para nos. 5 & 6 of the writ petition it is stated that since the petitioners are part time worker there is no question of any action being taken against them.

7. That in respect to the contents of para no. 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners were en gaged against no post in the depart ment on the contrary, as already stated in the preceding paras of this counter affidavit, they were engaged as a part time workers in the department for one hour per day to open the valve of drink ing water distribution pipe line and to close the same in the evening. Duty assigned to them is only for one hour per day and as such there is no ques tion of their regularisation or payment of minimum of pay scale to them. "

5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appel lants to pay minimum of pay scale till the petitioners are regularised; if the vacancies are available, to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularisation as per seniority; if there is no post vacant at present, the future vacancy shall be firstly filled by these petitioners; and no fresh re cruitment shall be made till the petition ers are regularised.

6. Mr. J. R Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the di rections contained in the impugned judg ment run counter to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document