CWP No.17815 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.17815 of 2008
Date of decision: 15.10.2008
Lakhwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging
the order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by Superintending
Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation, Circle Ludhiana whereby their
claim for equal pay for equal work has been rejected. The petitioners
have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant minimum
of pay scale to them as admissible to regular employees, for three years
and two months prior to filing of CWP No.5479 of 1987.
The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they
had earlier preferred CWP No.5479 of 1987 claiming regularization of
their services and grant of regular pay scale. That writ petition came up
for hearing on 6th December, 1995. As regards claim for equal pay for
equal work, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with
permission to the petitioners to approach the respondents authorities by
CWP No.17815 of 2008 2
filing a representation. The petitioners thereafter gave a legal notice to
the respondents. The same was rejected on 7th August, 1996 and both
the reliefs i.e. regularization and grant of minimum of pay scale were
declined. The petitioners thereafter preferred COCP No.1316 of 1996
alleging willful disobedience of order dated 6.12.1995. The said
contempt petition was, however, dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners
preferred another writ petition which was registered as CWP No.11290
of 1998. During the pendency of the said writ petition, services of the
petitioners were regularized. The writ petition was ultimately decided
vide judgment dated 8th October, 2001 (Annexure P-4). However, later
the petitioners moved Civil Misc. No.31192 of 2001 claiming therein
that they be paid minimum of pay scale and arrears in respect thereof for
a period of three years prior to filing of the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP
No.5479 of 1987. The said Civil Misc. was disposed by this Court on
20.12.2002. The operative part of the order passed while disposing of
Civil Misc. No.31192 of 2001 reads thus:
“In our opinion, these submissions should prevail and CWP
No.5479 of 1987 should be deemed to have been alive in
the contemplation of law or else CWP No.11290 of 1998
be deemed to be in continuation of CWP No.5479 of 1987.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondents are directed to
regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
Vs. Piara Singh 1992 SLJ 1 and the instructions issued by
the Government from time to time in this behalf.
Respondents are further directed to allow the minimum of
CWP No.17815 of 2008 3the time scale of the post of Pump Operators and also usual
allowances which is paid to regular Pump Operators upto
the date they are regularised until they remain daily wagers
etc., they shall continue to be paid at the minimum of the
time scale together with usual allowances. The petitioners
want that arrears of salary should be admissible to them for
the period of 3 years preceding 18.8.1987 and thereafter
from 18.8.1987 onwards. This prayer is also allowed and it
is ordered that the petitioners shall be paid arrears of salary
for the period 3 years preceding 18.8.1987 and thereafter
from 18.8.1987 onwards.
Sd/- M.L. Singhal,
Judge
December 20, 2002 Sd/- R.C. Kathuria,
Judge."
The respondent State, however, filed an SLP before the
apex court challenging the above order. The apex court was pleased to
grant relief and set-aside the judgment. The matters were remanded
back to the High Court for fresh decision. This order was passed on
September 07, 2006.
Finally, the matter came up before this court on October 03,
2007. The petitioners at this juncture limited their claim to grant of
minimum of pay scale as had been extended to similarly situated
employees engaged on regular basis. The said petition was disposed of
with a direction to Chief Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation
Department, Punjab, Patiala to determine the entitlement in respect of
the emoluments payable to the petitioners keeping in view the decision
rendered by the apex court in Uma Devi’s case 2006 (3) SLR 1. Vide
CWP No.17815 of 2008 4
Annexure P-9, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by holding
that daily wagers are not at par with regular employees. As such, claim
for equal pay by equal work was not made out.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He has
vehemently contended that the petitioners deserved to be granted the
minimum of pay scale at least three years prior to the filing of CWP
No.5479 of 1987.
However, we are of the considered view that this prayer of
the petitioners is not tenable. The counsel has not been able to point out
any defect with the impugned order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-9)
whereby claim of the petitioners has been declined on the ground that
daily wagers cannot be considered at par with the regular employees.
Moreover, CWP No.5479 of 1987 was dismissed as withdrawn,
whereafter order dated 7th August, 1996 was passed. Subsequently,
when the petitioners preferred CWP No.11290 of 1998, during the
pendency of the same their services were regularised. The petitioners
have now again raked up the issue of grant of minimum pay scale for the
period of three years prior to filing of CWP No.5479 of 1987. The
same, in our view, is misconceived.
This apart, the petitioners have not been able to show any
legal right to claim a minimum of pay scale as admissible to the regular
employees, during the period they remained daily wagers. The counsel
for the petitioners has merely argued that minimum of pay scale as
admissible to the regular employees should be granted to the petitioners
CWP No.17815 of 2008 5
for the period they remained as daily wagers. However, it has not been
shown how the order (Annexure P-9) is defective.
No other argument has been advanced.
We are, thus, of the considered view that no interference is
called for with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. The
writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
October 15, 2008
‘rajpal’