Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P/1).

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be please to make an order to allow the petitioner to grant regular pay scale under the contingency services immediately on completion of 3 years services from the initial date of appointment and direction be given to the respondent department to allow the petitioner to be given to difference of pay and all the benefits on the basis of equal pay for equal work.

10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

2. Mr. Rao would submit that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 08.09.1997 for a period of 89 days. He would further submit that according to the circular dated 09.01.1990, daily wagers are entitled to a regular pay scale after completion of the prescribed period of service. He would further submit that in light of the said circular, the General Administration Department issued a subsequent circular dated 15.12.1992, whereby daily wagers who had completed more than three years of services and appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would be entitled to a regular pay scale under contingency establishment. He would contend that as the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and was not extended the benefit of regular pay scale, he preferred WPS No. 1738 of 2021, which was disposed of on 23.03.2021 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent authorities and in turn, the respondent authorities were directed to decide the same. He would argue that pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2021, petitioner made a representation which was rejected on 23.12.2021, against which the present petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Rao would submit that according to the circulars dated 09.01.1990 and 15.12.1992, the petitioner is entitled to a regular pay scale after completion of the requisite period of service, as he was appointed prior to 31.12.1988. He would further argue that similarly situated daily wagers have already been extended the said benefit; thus, he would pray that this petition may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee in the year 1997 and was not appointed against any vacant sanctioned post. He would further submit that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 22.03.2005, and from that date, he has been granted the pay scale and other benefits attached to the post. He would contend that being a daily-rated employee, he is not entitled to regular pay scale prior to the date of regularization; therefore, the claim has rightly been rejected.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. The circulars dated 09.01.1990 and 15.12.1992 were issued to govern the service conditions of contingency-paid employees. The petitioner was a daily-rated employee in the year 1997; therefore, his case would not fall within the purview of the said circulars. The services of the petitioner have already been regularized with effect from 22.03.2005, and from that date, he has been granted the benefits attached to the post.

7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.