The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' may not apply to temporary employees, and unexplained delay in approaching the court can impact the decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this writ petition although ten prayers are raised, however, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, on instruction and on the basis of subsequent events, is pressing only prayers no. 3 and 4, which are reproduced as under:

“(3) To pay minimum of regular pay as directed to be paid by the State Government vide G.O. dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure No. 3) adopting the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 20.2.2002 in State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal and the Government Order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure No. 13) from the date their juniors were granted.

(4) Direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on Group D (Mali) post pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that before filing of this petition as well as during pendency of this writ petition, on both above referred issues, matter was traveled upto the Supreme Court and on law decided in favour of similarly situated persons. He relied on paras 4 and 5 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, which are reproduced hereinafter:

“4. Mr. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel appearing for the employees, made a grievance with regard to some of the provisions of the aforesaid rules but we are not inclined to entertain that grievance and issue any direction in this case inasmuch as grievance, if any, emanating from the aforesaid statutory rules would be on a fresh cause of action which could be assailed before an appropriate forum by the aggrieved party. Mr. Bahuguna, however, contended that so far as the entitlement of these daily-wagers until they are regularised in accordance with the statutory rule to get minimum of the pay-scale, should be granted by this Court which is not being given because of the interim order of stay that had been passed by this Court and the dismissal of the LA. filed by the employees. According to him, a judgment of a learned single Judge in respect of the forest employees unequivocally held that the daily-wagers should be paid in the minimum of the pay-scale as is available to a regularly employed worker in the corresponding cadre.

5. In several cases, this Court, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay-scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion, that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay-scale being received by their counter-part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as dailywager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to.” (Emphasis added)

3. Learned counsel also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, (2019) 12 SCC 297, paras 11, 12 and 13, which are reproduced as under:

“11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) iswhether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.

12. In view of the judgment in Jagj